3D output

Post your questions here.
Doby
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:30 am

Re: 3D output

Post by Doby »

toni12345 wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:51 pm
I'm still in the experimenting phase myself but I think the possibilities are fascinating.
Keep us posted! Good stuff!

toni12345
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:03 pm

Re: 3D output

Post by toni12345 »

Thanks. At the moment I'm playing with the idea to do a music video for the complete song you can hear in the snippets. But this is giong to take some time.
Fman00 wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:25 pm
Last thing- Google are bringing out the ability to upload VR180 videos to Youtube (natively 3d 180 degree vr videos). I've been waiting for them to release the details for resolutions/metadata generator as I really fancy doing something with Muvizu for this. Hoping that just using wide field of view in Muvizu should be enough for the 180 degress but haven't had a play yet. I would recommend anybody with cardboard check out VR180 on Youtube as it is quite compelling. If you have Samsung Gear VR check out the Amaze app as this has similar 180 videos.
I had a look at that as well, I also think it's an interesting approach to vr content, and implementation in Muvizu should be possible as soon as we know more about the specifications.

User avatar
StarHopper
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:11 pm

Re: 3D output

Post by StarHopper »

toni12345 wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:51 pm
Fman00 wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:25 pm
I tried mucking about with this last year but I simply had 2 360 cameras side by side and output the left and right as top and bottom on Youtube. Inevitably this just meant good 3d to the front, none to the side and inverted cameras when you turn around. I was going to cut the back half of the 360 images and swap them over but ran out of steam when I realised that halving the resolution by doing 3d in Youtube 360 made the videos so fuzzy. Your video works well with the characters being in the close forground and I am really curious how you got the 3d to work (I saw the video thumbnail of your video on my phones web browwser and it seemed to be 2 top/bottom videos arranged side by side).
I assume you are talking about my videos even though you adressed starhopper ;)

I actually did swap the backview of the two cameras using a video editor. This still leaves you with next to no 3D effect to the side of your view, but it's the easiest solution for me to come up with a halfway decent 3D image. Resolution is a problem in 360 videos, so go as high as you can.

It doesn't really matter if you export your videos as "side by side" or "top/bottom" as long as Youtube recognizes the format. When you use the metadata injector for 360 videos provided by Youtube, you have to have the top/bottom-format.

I hope that helps, feel free to ask if you need more details. I'm still in the experimenting phase myself but I think the possibilities are fascinating.
It's imperative that your cameras be perfectly level for the stereoscopic effect to work. In my experiments I've had some issues with the rear view but not the sides. Then again, I was only working with still. I love the challenge of telling a story in a single image such as this one I call "Captain for a Day" https://flic.kr/p/E15Xfp I don't know of any only platform that supports stereoscopic 360 stills and the image itself is too big to add as an attachment here.

Googles 180 initiative is designed to appeal to popular YouTubers with a lower-cost entry-level camera with maximum impact in the hopes of driving the medium forward.My focus remains on creating engaging 360 experiences with solid storytelling and effective sound design.
Spiritworld - My 360 animated series created with Muvizu: https://www.facebook.com/Ectolini/

Fman00
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: 3D output

Post by Fman00 »

toni12345 wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:51 pm


I assume you are talking about my videos even though you adressed starhopper ;)
Ah, err oops. Sorry about misaddressing the post (shuffles feet and looks guilitly at the floor). Apologies- I get confused easily :oops: .

Anyway, thanks for the info. I will definately play around with swapping the backview of the cameras when I get chance but I may pick your brain at some point in the future if/when I hit a brick wall trying it.

I totally agree with the comment about making things as high resolution as possible. I did a 360 tester of Urbanlamb's Metropolis set at 1080p as at the time I didn't have a 4k editor. I then found that Blender's video editor did 4k and I did the video again and it looks so much better although I didn't post the updated video. One thing about the set that was a problem specifically for VR though is that the textures are too detailed on some of the buildings making them appear shimmery in 360 (this is possibly not the technical term) even in 4k. I'm thinking that simple textures for background scenery/assets is probably best for Youtube 360.

Fman00
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: 3D output

Post by Fman00 »

StarHopper wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:02 am


Googles 180 initiative is designed to appeal to popular YouTubers with a lower-cost entry-level camera with maximum impact in the hopes of driving the medium forward.My focus remains on creating engaging 360 experiences with solid storytelling and effective sound design.
I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with for 360 (Gun Shy Gulch was a great idea & video).

The reason I like the idea of VR180 as well as 360 though is that it looks like it will be easier to keep people more or less focussed where you want them to look to help follow a narrative whilst still allowing them the scope of looking about so they feel part of the video. Also full 360 only works if you stand up or sit on a swivel chair and sometimes it is nice to do VR on a nice comfy sofa :)

The main problem for me with the VR180 is the immediate black void beyond the edges of the video which does kind of smack the sense of immersion around the face a bit. I'm hoping that Google come up with some blurring slightly beyond the 180 degrees to soften the impact (similar to the effect used on TV around mobile video filmed in portrait mode) but we'll see what tweaks they come up with if the format is around long enough.

toni12345
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:03 pm

Re: 3D output

Post by toni12345 »

StarHopper wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:02 am
I don't know of any only platform that supports stereoscopic 360 stills
Have you had a look at https://www.360cities.net/ ? They focus on real life panoramas but they offer a "out of this world" option to upload virtual stuff as well. I did a quick test with a first draft for the set of my music video and it seem s to work quite well:

https://www.360cities.net/image/virtual-barroom

I'd love to view your "Captain for a day" in 3D.

User avatar
StarHopper
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:11 pm

Re: 3D output

Post by StarHopper »

toni12345 wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:24 pm
StarHopper wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:02 am
I don't know of any only platform that supports stereoscopic 360 stills
Have you had a look at https://www.360cities.net/ ? They focus on real life panoramas but they offer a "out of this world" option to upload virtual stuff as well. I did a quick test with a first draft for the set of my music video and it seem s to work quite well:

https://www.360cities.net/image/virtual-barroom

I'd love to view your "Captain for a day" in 3D.
OK, I created an account on the 360cities and still waiting for my published uploads to be approved.

Here's the 3D version of Captain for a Day: https://www.360cities.net/image/captain-for-a-day

And here's a video I captured using my Samsung Gear 360: https://video.360cities.net/video_page. ... d-friendly

I was able to view your Virtual Ballroom and it works quite well except for the keyboard and trumpet players. I also noticed what appears to be seem lines.

In any case, thanks for the suggestion. I'll post more images and videos once I get my approvals.

Oh, and for some strange reason, the Android app for 360cities doesn't seem to recognize my logiin.
Spiritworld - My 360 animated series created with Muvizu: https://www.facebook.com/Ectolini/

toni12345
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:03 pm

Re: 3D output

Post by toni12345 »

StarHopper wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:48 am
Here's the 3D version of Captain for a Day: https://www.360cities.net/image/captain-for-a-day
Looks good! I couldn't get the two pictures together with my google cardboard in some small areas (eg chair below the cameras), but mainly the 3D-effect works quite well. Nice set!
I was able to view your Virtual Ballroom and it works quite well except for the keyboard and trumpet players. I also noticed what appears to be seem lines.
The seam lines are due to sloppy stitching in Photoshop. Are you talking about the eyes of the keyboarder and trumpet player? They seem to have blinked when one of the stills was rendered. I guess this is something which also needs to be fixed in Photoshop in "post production". Or is there any way to synchronise effects like blinking or flickering lights when you render the two videos of a stereoscopic shot?

I didn't put more effort into this picture since it's only supposed to be a draft for a complete video clip. But thanks anyway for your input.

User avatar
StarHopper
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:11 pm

Re: 3D output

Post by StarHopper »

toni12345 wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:14 pm
StarHopper wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:48 am
Here's the 3D version of Captain for a Day: https://www.360cities.net/image/captain-for-a-day
Looks good! I couldn't get the two pictures together with my google cardboard in some small areas (eg chair below the cameras), but mainly the 3D-effect works quite well. Nice set!
I was able to view your Virtual Ballroom and it works quite well except for the keyboard and trumpet players. I also noticed what appears to be seem lines.
The seam lines are due to sloppy stitching in Photoshop. Are you talking about the eyes of the keyboarder and trumpet player? They seem to have blinked when one of the stills was rendered. I guess this is something which also needs to be fixed in Photoshop in "post production". Or is there any way to synchronise effects like blinking or flickering lights when you render the two videos of a stereoscopic shot?

I didn't put more effort into this picture since it's only supposed to be a draft for a complete video clip. But thanks anyway for your input.
You're supposed to be sitting in the chair so, not much to see there. If you look up however, there a little something there ;) The set is mostly pre-built in Muvizu. I just added some images on the screen and used the UFO floating upside down for the ceiling. The hearts had to be edited in Photoshop due to the random nature of the particle emitter.

Yes, it was the eyes that I noticed were off. You can prevent characters from blinking under the 'Body' tab of the editor. You might want to turn off breathing while your at it. Any randomness such as blinking lights and effects should also be avoided.
Spiritworld - My 360 animated series created with Muvizu: https://www.facebook.com/Ectolini/

toni12345
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:03 pm

Re: 3D output

Post by toni12345 »

I ran into another problem while rendering the two video clips for the right and left eye in my music video. Maybe some of you have an idea what I am doing wrong or how to deal with it. When I render the two clips with exactly the same options and only changing the camera, one of them is slightly longer (5 frames or so). This might not seem much, but when you watch them with vr glasses, after one minute or so you notice quite clearly that the two clips are ou tof sync, and at the end of the clip (ca. 4 minutes) they're totally off.

What I am trying to do at the moment is exporting an image sequence and then delete five frames in one of the clips spaced out evenly over the whole duration of the video. That makes it a little better, but still not perfect. Is there something I'm doing wrong or is it just that the rendering process of Muvizu isn't as accurate at this poinz as it would need to be?