Dimensionalisation:
a magic
today possible.

The revolution is called dimensionalisation.

This revolution will bring in theaters or on 3D televisions all the commercials or videos shooted with a traditional single camera in 3D.

With the rapid spread of the 3D in theaters and thanks to consumer products such as 3D TV is easy to see that the dimensionalisation is the future and if we add the fact that the dimensionalisation process is much easier and cheaper than shooting (and think) directly in 3D any doubts on the effectiveness of this technique is dissolved.

How does the dimentionalization of a video work?

Within our structure in Milan we have developed a proprietary system for the dimensionalisation of a video which is processed frame by frame "almost" automatically "almost" because in Real Time we have decided to manage the fields of the depth Z axis (when the object must get out of the screen - negative stereoscopy- or return back to the screen - positive stereoscopy ) according to customer needs and broadcast guidelines for television or theaters.

Of course, the software recreates the volumes of the subjects too in order to set the right viewing angle of the left and right camera, because - looking at an object - what the left eye sees is different from what the right sees. The process is laborious but at the end the result between a live stereoscopic shoot and a video dimensionalisation is almost indistinguishable.

The transformation of a 2D video permit, paradoxically, to achieve better and more impactful, from a stereoscopic point of view, results, compared the analogue video shooted directly in 3D.

What is the difference between shooting in 3D stereoscopic and dimensionalisation?

Anyone who claims that the 3D stereoscopic shot is better, he has never seen a "real" dimensionalisation.
Lucas and Spielberg use the dimensionalisation process since a year. Finally James Cameron too, after seeing two months ago the dimensionalisation of "Aliens of the Deep", converted himself to this process, because with this technique, you avoid the well-known problems of vertical alignment, the wheelbase animation of is more fluid and the management of parallel cameras is controlled digitally.
The beauty of dimensionalisation is that it offers the possibility to recreate a movie as it was shot, while in a 3D shot you will be never able to recreate a movie with the fluidity and variations of the depth of a dimensionalisation process.

Five reasons to choose dimensionalisation.

The director and the stereographer are involved in two separate moments - first on the set, the second during the transformation of the film from 2D to 3D - avoiding the difficulties of interaction between the two figures who have different shooting needs.

Shot in live 3D need double production time than a film shooted with a single camera.

The quality of the 3D shot is less than the 2D one, because the crew must be subject to the limitations on weights, dimensions, techniques and equipment that a stereoscopic system requires.

A wrong convergence during a stereoscopic shot can not be changed, while in dimensionalisation everything is possible.

The "budget of depth" (the stereoscopic Z-axis ) varies between the preparation of the video for the great and the small screen: a live filmed for TV can not be used for cinemas, because the stereoscopic 3D effect will vastly extended, with the result of an uncomfortable view. Similarly, what is being filmed stereoscopically for the cinema can not be used for TV because you lose the 3D stereoscopic effect. The dimensionalisation - finished the process - create an output in real time for both cinema and TV, to put it better two videos with two different Z-axis.