Stereoscopic (S-3D) Support thread

[Stereoscopic_Panda]

3DTV is, indeed old tech.


1982, an arcade game named subroc 3D used shutter glasses (two rotating discs with a half painted in black) synced to the monitor.


The Master System had a pair of LCD shutter glasses to play e few games (Zaxxon 3D is part of them).


The Famicom had a similar system too.


In the late 90's there were a whole lot of companies that were selling shutter glasses for computers (And at the time, I was hoping to get one, but I couldn't afford them).


The only "innovation" is that now, the LCD screens are fast enough to hit the 120Hz…


So it's at least a 28 y.o. technology.

Actually the first shutter or eclipse method was shown in 1922 in the so-called "Teleview" system that used mechanical shutters in front of every seat that were synchronized with the projector. 3D has been around for over 100 years. Nobody can dispute that.


The key is that today's 3D is implemented with today's technology The shutter glasses of today, while similar to those in the late 1980's have some key differences, what's more, the displays they interact with are a world apart! In this case I say "Viva la Differance!"

 

[scorpio]

3DTV is, indeed old tech.


1982, an arcade game named subroc 3D used shutter glasses (two rotating discs with a half painted in black) synced to the monitor.


The Master System had a pair of LCD shutter glasses to play e few games (Zaxxon 3D is part of them).


The Famicom had a similar system too.


In the late 90's there were a whole lot of companies that were selling shutter glasses for computers (And at the time, I was hoping to get one, but I couldn't afford them).


The only "innovation" is that now, the LCD screens are fast enough to hit the 120Hz…


So it's at least a 28 y.o. technology.

Actually the first shutter or eclipse method was shown in 1922 in the so-called "Teleview" system that used mechanical shutters in front of every seat that were synchronized with the projector. 3D has been around for over 100 years. Nobody can dispute that.


The key is that today's 3D is implemented with today's technology The shutter glasses of today, while similar to those in the late 1980's have some key differences, what's more, the displays they interact with are a world apart! In this case I say "Viva la Differance!"

Binocular drawings were made by Giovanni Battista della Porta (1538-1615), whilst about the same period Jacopo Chimenti da Empoli (1554-1640) produced drawings side by side which clearly indicated his understanding of binocular vision.


SOURCE: http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/stereosc.htm

 

[cinaed666]

Voted absolutely - but only with glasses. I wouldn't want to do any modification to the hardware, but keep it portable. I think red/cyan glasses would have some interesting applications.

 

[Stereoscopic_Panda]

3DTV is, indeed old tech.


1982, an arcade game named subroc 3D used shutter glasses (two rotating discs with a half painted in black) synced to the monitor.


The Master System had a pair of LCD shutter glasses to play e few games (Zaxxon 3D is part of them).


The Famicom had a similar system too.


In the late 90's there were a whole lot of companies that were selling shutter glasses for computers (And at the time, I was hoping to get one, but I couldn't afford them).


The only "innovation" is that now, the LCD screens are fast enough to hit the 120Hz…


So it's at least a 28 y.o. technology.

Actually the first shutter or eclipse method was shown in 1922 in the so-called "Teleview" system that used mechanical shutters in front of every seat that were synchronized with the projector. 3D has been around for over 100 years. Nobody can dispute that.


The key is that today's 3D is implemented with today's technology The shutter glasses of today, while similar to those in the late 1980's have some key differences, what's more, the displays they interact with are a world apart! In this case I say "Viva la Differance!"

Binocular drawings were made by Giovanni Battista della Porta (1538-1615), whilst about the same period Jacopo Chimenti da Empoli (1554-1640) produced drawings side by side which clearly indicated his understanding of binocular vision.


SOURCE: http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/stereosc.htm

That's highly controversial, the foremost historians in the matter credit Wheatstone's discovery. DaVinci knew that objects were perceived from two separate angles, however the linkage with that to the sensation of depth is purely Wheatstone's. Check out my blog post on the subject

 

[scorpio]

3DTV is, indeed old tech.


1982, an arcade game named subroc 3D used shutter glasses (two rotating discs with a half painted in black) synced to the monitor.


The Master System had a pair of LCD shutter glasses to play e few games (Zaxxon 3D is part of them).


The Famicom had a similar system too.


In the late 90's there were a whole lot of companies that were selling shutter glasses for computers (And at the time, I was hoping to get one, but I couldn't afford them).


The only "innovation" is that now, the LCD screens are fast enough to hit the 120Hz…


So it's at least a 28 y.o. technology.

Actually the first shutter or eclipse method was shown in 1922 in the so-called "Teleview" system that used mechanical shutters in front of every seat that were synchronized with the projector. 3D has been around for over 100 years. Nobody can dispute that.


The key is that today's 3D is implemented with today's technology The shutter glasses of today, while similar to those in the late 1980's have some key differences, what's more, the displays they interact with are a world apart! In this case I say "Viva la Differance!"

Binocular drawings were made by Giovanni Battista della Porta (1538-1615), whilst about the same period Jacopo Chimenti da Empoli (1554-1640) produced drawings side by side which clearly indicated his understanding of binocular vision.


SOURCE: http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/stereosc.htm

That's highly controversial, the foremost historians in the matter credit Wheatstone's discovery. DaVinci knew that objects were perceived from two separate angles, however the linkage with that to the sensation of depth is purely Wheatstone's. Check out my blog post on the subject

Cool - we truly stand on the shoulder of giants. There is one thing I want to know about modern 3D rigs - I notice on your blog you have a 3D rig which seems to be using the mirror/prism approach and you seem to only be monitoring a single camera via a viewfinder. So my question is - how do you adjust for convergence with those rigs? Do one of the mirrors tilt? Particularly if a subject is moving towards the camera and gets within 1 yard, as the subject moves towards the camera from further away, is there a "convergence puller" working with a focus puller to keep the images lined up and focus all correct?

 

[Stereoscopic_Panda]

Cool - we truly stand on the shoulder of giants. There is one thing I want to know about modern 3D rigs - I notice on your blog you have a 3D rig which seems to be using the mirror/prism approach and you seem to only be monitoring a single camera via a viewfinder. So my question is - how do you adjust for convergence with those rigs? Do one of the mirrors tilt? Particularly if a subject is moving towards the camera and gets within 1 yard, as the subject moves towards the camera from further away, is there a "convergence puller" working with a focus puller to keep the images lined up and focus all correct?

 

[stratego]

I voted for Yes, Only for Auto-stereoscopic (Glasses Free) built in display. I look enough geek with my OP to now add fancy glasses too B)


Having said that, I would only like it as a curiosity. My only experience with 3D was Tron Legacy and (a part from the movie having a stupid plot) I was amazed by the poor quality of the image (very blur), not by the 3D itself. Many years ago I went to Futurescope in France, and they had a 3D movie called Honey, I shrunk the audience. That was impresive. Things jumping aout the screen and so. But the glasses were massive and wired.

 

[scorpio]

That was a 2D viewfinder though I prefer the "TransVideo" Monitor, it's capable of a few different modes like 50/50 overlay, subtractive and others. I prefer to use anaglyph red/cyan but without the glasses since the eyes are more sensitive to slight color differences. Monitoring a 3D shoot with 3D glasses on isn't very effective because the brain does all sorts of compensation even if the shot isn't set up the way one might like. Another reason not to look at a small monitor showing both views overlaid in 2D is because many times the stereographer is setting the scene geometry with the large screen in mind.


One of the best 3D film makers had only one eye


The concept of "racking convergence" and having "convergence pullers" is a matter of style and taste. Some automated systems have been able to eliminate the dedicated convergence puller altogether and integrated that task into those performed by the stereographer.


Also, many times content is acquired with cameras in a parallel, or near parallel configuration, with the "convergence" being performed in post by Horizontal Image Translation, or H.I.T.


When content is not acquired by using a parallel configuration, in the rig type I'm using a so called "beam splitter" rig, angulation or "toe-in" can be achieved by angling the camera that shoots directly through the mirror.


Kind of a flamey topic

wow ok. fix it in post hey. thanks for the info i will read up on it. i had never heard of HIT - must be expensive compared to just using some form of on-set convergence solution. btw are you ever visiting Sydney? would love to have a chat if you swing by and you have time. this is me: www.daviddimuroproductions.com

 

[Nation.A.List]

in my case one less pandora owner, cant' and never will be able to watch anything in 3d, one eye is so dominant i barely use the other, hence really poor depth perception, and it's impossible to use any 3d tech, all i see is a flickering image (it's funny as hell seeing a salesperson trying to sell me 3d gear)

So your avatar is a reasonable likeness then

 

[darfgarf]

So your avatar is a reasonable likeness then

pretty close actually, shaved the beard off though now as it's too hot for one


...my hair isn't made from chips though, and i can't hover...also can't shoot lasers from my eyes, but possibly one day

 

[WizardStan]

The key is that today's 3D is implemented with today's technology The shutter glasses of today, while similar to those in the late 1980's have some key differences, what's more, the displays they interact with are a world apart! In this case I say "Viva la Differance!"

Technically true. To use your watch analogy, my complaint with Sony's claims would be like if we all switched to pocket watches for years, until people began forgotting how easy it was put a watch on a band and tie it to your wrist, and then suddenly Sony came out with a watch that you could strap to your wrist and made it out to be the best thing ever! It's basically the exact same watch we've had for years, just now it comes with a solid gold, diamond studded bracelet to keep it on your wrist, and everyone is buying it up because it's the next great thing! Nevermind it's both expensive and bulky, people have to have it. Granted, the watches themselves are more advanced, keeping more accurate time with better features, but they aren't advertising the advancements of the watch, they're advertising how great it is to have a strap on watch so you can quickly check the time on your wrist.


Meanwhile, Nintendo has released a watch which is no more than a sticker on the back of your hand and costs relatively little, and LG and Samsung are developing tech that would allow you to simply know the time whenever you wanted to without having to look at your wrist or pull a watch out of your pocket or anything like that! But no one is paying attention to these different takes on time keeping technology because Sony's marketing department has convinced people that watches with heavy bulky straps (just like we had 30 years ago, before someone decided wrist straps were a gimmick and we all went back to pocket watches) is the way of the future.

 

[Stereoscopic_Panda]

The watch analogy is more akin to an analog watch with tiny gears compared to a digital watch. They are very different technologies though in some ways they may seem similar.


I think the Sharp manufactured auto-stereoscopic parallax barrier screen on the 3DS is pretty good. However I believe the GPU in the unit is woefully underpowered. The reason I won't get a 3DS is the same reason I don't have the DS, the graphics are just not good enough for me.


The concept of "Active" vs. "Passive" glasses is a matter of taste, just like someone can pick between a projector, a Plasma, or an LCD.


I've seen a couple glasses-free television implementations recently that are incrementally better than their predecessors, but still not ready for prime time, and won't be for I would suppose another 10 years.


Innovation isn't always about making something complete new in fact Tablets have been around since the time of Shakespeare! Recall this line from Hamlet ""My tablets! Quick, my tablets! 'tis meet that I put it down," Poor guy lost his tablet, well maybe it was the same form factor as the iPad

 

[WizardStan]

Innovation isn't always about making something complete new in fact Tablets have been around since the time of Shakespeare! Recall this line from Hamlet ""My tablets! Quick, my tablets! 'tis meet that I put it down," Poor guy lost his tablet, well maybe it was the same form factor as the iPad

If Apple's marketing department was implying that never before the iPad was it possible to write freeform on something so thin thin, and that there is no other technology that can possibly do the same thing, I'd agree with you.

 

[Norl]

3D is one of those things i just don't 'get'. I keep meaning to see an imax 3D movie but it's kind of expensive. Ticket, tub of popcorn, bucket of coke, hot dog, king-size snickers is about $30!

 

[chole]

3D is one of those things i just don't 'get'. I keep meaning to see an imax 3D movie but it's kind of expensive. Ticket, tub of popcorn, bucket of coke, hot dog, king-size snickers is about $30!

You know, you're not required to buy food when you see a movie. It's a theater, not a restaurant.

 

[Stereoscopic_Panda]

3D is one of those things i just don't 'get'. I keep meaning to see an imax 3D movie but it's kind of expensive. Ticket, tub of popcorn, bucket of coke, hot dog, king-size snickers is about $30!

You know, you're not required to buy food when you see a movie. It's a theater, not a restaurant.

Theaters make their money off pop-corn. NOT the movie ticket sales.

 

[Norl]

You know, you're not required to buy food when you see a movie. It's a theater, not a restaurant.

That's like going to see the strippers and not getting a lap dance. (And nachos, forgot the nachos.)

 

[bismuthdrummer]

3D is one of those things i just don't 'get'. I keep meaning to see an imax 3D movie but it's kind of expensive. Ticket, tub of popcorn, bucket of coke, hot dog, king-size snickers is about $30!

I know not for movies, but I played a little of the demo 3DS at my local Best Buy. I'm as big a skeptic as any retro gamer (Yay... shiny depth), however unlike Sony I do perceive merit in the technology. I hope that they accommodate for people like gfrancisdev when able and allow the feature to be tuned or turned off, and the 3DS does accommodate.


My eyes didn't 'get' the 3DS first time I laid eyes on it. I had little time at the store, so I quickly tried it out and left the store thoroughly confused. The next time my eyes figured it out; I just had to regard the image presented to me in the same way you might try to make 3D images "pop out" of those crazy picture books. Stare and focus in on the screen, holding the image straight and the correct distance away from your face. It's neat, but obviously won't make or break a game for me.


I guess I fail to see the practical gain from adding this 'new' technology to a retro gaming device. It just doesn't present something readily usable by the content already provided, so more content would have to be added or adopted to even make use of it. I'm going to climb out on a limb and say that OPT should really have bigger fish to fry already, like production times/costs, conformity of emulators, or SOMETHING more pressing. I'm not saying those two particular things are definitely priority, all I'm saying is that I can't see stereoscopic support being very high on their list. I hope I am sternly corrected if I am mistaken on that.


As I already voted my interest... yeah, I think it would be cool. So would flying cars, but we have planes already, so cars with wings (or levitation/whatever) aren't too practical yet either.

 

[Eridger]

As a person lacking binocular vision, I find this discussion very distasteful.


I am insulted, sirs.

 

[Nintendo]

As a person lacking binocular vision, I find this discussion very distasteful.


I am insulted, sirs.

QFT and agreed!!!