Why I Hate 3-d (and You Should Too)

[Owen]

I agree that colour is a big part of Avatar and 3d certainly helps in the cinema, but in the home on a good display the 3d effect is not worth much, its just different.

[Tweedledum]

I agree that colour is a big part of Avatar and 3d certainly helps in the cinema, but in the home on a good display the 3d effect is not worth much, its just different.

Hi, having seen Avatar in 2D I wasn't about to go and see it again in 3D, other movies in the pipeline.

However, having seen A Christmas Carol and Alice in Wonderland in 3D I can quite honestly say that 3D is here to stay, like it or not, the movie makers will just make them.

Some years ago I remember the reaction to Cinemascope wide screen productions, and the few that rejected the movies as being un-natural, not normal for viewing, too eye straining etc, the list of objections went on, and died as all objections die.

I expect there are a few die hard objectors that hark from the early 20th century, that objected to the colouration of movies as being not artistically presentable to the impact of the storyline, in the same way as the early movies were compared to live stage productions, and decried as being not truly representative of the writer's/author's skill.

Who cares, as long as there is a following to fund the new medium there'll always be a new medium.

No more than three years ago one camera shop propriotor in Dandenong stated that he was "going to wait and see" just how long the new fad would last before he invested in any form of digital photography.

There are now no camera shops in Dandenong selling cameras as an ocupation.

I watched the 3D trials on the HD TV channel, and if I can figure out a way to somehow view them with a modified pair of binoculars or some form of split mirror device I might be on to a winner.

I wonder if you could view the channel with one of those stereo viewers that are used to view stereo slides, might be worth a try, it appears there are two simultaneous pictures side by side but with the image seperation necessary to make 3D or stereo.

Ian.

[MLXXX]

I watched the 3D trials on the HD TV channel, and if I can figure out a way to somehow view them with a modified pair of binoculars or some form of split mirror device I might be on to a winner.

1. This would probably work: http://www.berezin.com/3d/wheatstone.htm

2. Am not sure whether this device would work with a large TV screen: http://www.pokescope.com/pokescopeinfo.html

Of course, you'd need to reduce the height of the side by side broadcast to half for correct aspect ratio, perhaps only possible if using a pc as a video source for the TV set.

Here's a method for use with two computer monitors and a mirror:* http://www.crystalcanyons.net/abouts/3dc9_...orComplete.shtm

A variety of information appears here: http://nzphoto.tripod.com/stereo/3dview/index.htm#how

________________________

* I tried this tonight with two LCD monitors one 22" and one 23.6" and it worked! But it would have been much easier to align the images with monitors the same size.

Edited June 30, 2010 by MLXXX

[Tweedledum]

1. This would probably work: http://www.berezin.com/3d/wheatstone.htm

2. Am not sure whether this device would work with a large TV screen: http://www.pokescope.com/pokescopeinfo.html

Of course, you'd need to reduce the height of the side by side broadcast to half for correct aspect ratio, perhaps only possible if using a pc as a video source for the TV set.

Here's a method for use with two computer monitors and a mirror:* http://www.crystalcanyons.net/abouts/3dc9_...orComplete.shtm

A variety of information appears here: http://nzphoto.tripod.com/stereo/3dview/index.htm#how

Hi mlxxx, just had a look at your post, but it looks too complicated with two monitors and a mirror.

However I just found a way to see stereo pics without special glasses.....yes that is with the naked eyes......works with the 3D test transmission on the HDTV channel too....anyone guess how it works?.........all will be revealed in my next post.

Ian.

________________________

* I tried this tonight with two LCD monitors one 22" and one 23.6" and it worked! But it would have been much easier to align the images with monitors the same size.

[MLXXX]

Hi mlxxx, just had a look at your post, but it looks too complicated with two monitors and a mirror.

However I just found a way to see stereo pics without special glasses.....yes that is with the naked eyes......works with the 3D test transmission on the HDTV channel too....anyone guess how it works?.........all will be revealed in my next post.

Ian.

Well two toy periscopes wouldn't be with the naked eyes.

Looking cross-eyed and swapping the left and right images?

[MLXXX]

Ok, Ian, how about this:

1. Source material side by side squashed 3D video.

2. Sterescopic player set for:

• playback option half width aspect ratio
  
• playback option flip left image horizontally (i.e. a mirror image)
  
• separation of 5% or 10%
  

3. Sit in front of TV set at normal viewing distance.

4. Hold up mirror to your nose with mirrored side to the left.

Look at right TV image direct with right eye; look at left image with left eye via mirror reflection. Adjust mirror angle so that images coincide. (Required angle is slight.)

Happy 3D viewing!

______________________

Notes:

1. The 3D effect seems to me a bit clearer than setting stereoscopic player to full screen anaglyph and wearing anaglyph glasses. Unfortunately it is only half the size.
   
2. The reflected image the left eye sees would be improved if a "front surface mirror" were used.
   
3. I used a mirror about 1220mm x 370mm resting on the floor. This is easier to keep in a position than a hand mirror.
   

Edited July 2, 2010 by MLXXX

[MLXXX]

Looking cross-eyed and swapping the left and right images?

To get started it is best to try a fixed image, rather than video, and one that is not too wide. This webpage explains the technique: http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase/ihelp.html

I find that I have to keep the total video width down to about half of the full width of my 60" SXRD set, for my vision to stay successfully cross-eyed. Given that the images are already in side by side format, this yields only one quarter normal viewing width. My 60" set becomes a 15" set! I don't know whether my viewing width capacity will improve with a bit of practice.

The technique relies on converging the eyes as if looking at something quite close, but focusing the eyes at the actual greater distance. This is not easy! But once you have your eyes correctly converged and focused it is not hard to keep the image clearly in view in 3D, including viewing video in 3D.

You cannot use this technique without reversing the order of the side by side images. Stereoscopic player can do the required swap for still images or video.

Edited July 2, 2010 by MLXXX

[penguin20]

A lot of people find 3D amazing..

Well, I think it is just for a moment! As this "3D" stuff is something new to them.

[Tweedledum]

To get started it is best to try a fixed image, rather than video, and one that is not too wide. This webpage explains the technique: http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase/ihelp.html

I find that I have to keep the total video width down to about half of the full width of my 60" SXRD set, for my vision to stay successfully cross-eyed. Given that the images are already in side by side format, this yields only one quarter normal viewing width. My 60" set becomes a 15" set! I don't know whether my viewing width capacity will improve with a bit of practice.

The technique relies on converging the eyes as if looking at something quite close, but focusing the eyes at the actual greater distance. This is not easy! But once you have your eyes correctly converged and focused it is not hard to keep the image clearly in view in 3D, including viewing video in 3D.

You cannot use this technique without reversing the order of the side by side images. Stereoscopic player can do the required swap for still images or video.

OOOOOhhhhhhh, MlXXX, someone told you........LOL.....yeah that's exactly how I "discovered" the method.

Except I don't use any mirrors or DVD adjustment, just "eye boggling manipulation".

I do however look at the images cross eyed as they say, or to put it correctly looking at an imaginary object at 100mm from your nose, but focusing at a distance of 3 or 4 metres or more... whatever.

It is practically impossible, without practice, to make your eyes not converge on a spot that is at a focal point of your eyes, that is, if you look at an object like a book or newspaper your eyes will focus on the page and they will converge to form one image, all done in the brain involuntarily, the only control you have is where you choose to focus your eyes, the eyeballs will swivel in their sockets to form a single image in the brain.

To fool the brain place a stereo pair such as two photos 75mm apart and at arms length and stare at them for a few seconds, then go "crosseyed", that is focus on a point about 100mm from your nose.

This is an unnatural condition as the brain now sees two objects out of focus, IE eyes converged at 100mm and two out of focus objects at about 1 metre.

After a few seconds in this condition, a third image will appear in the middle of the apparent other two, if you are able to hold the convergence/focus point for a few seconds the third image will become more apparent as the brain interprets the only explanation of the information it is receiving.

It also strengthens the image if you bring your hands up to 100mm from your face and spaced about 100mm apart.

What this does is to block out the inline views of the photos to each eye while in the "crosseyed" state, but allow the right eye to see the left photo etc etc.

This third image is the result of the right eye seeing the left image and the left eye seeing the right image and the brain forming one image from the two as it normally would, except now the information is incorrect or corrupted, in which case you have fooled the brain in to seeing something that isn't there, or more correctly, is there but not as you know it, in other words a pseudo reality image, or 3D or stereo image.

To see the 3D image stand out and have depth the stereo pair must be reversed from the order in which they were made because the eyes are now seeing the opposite images instead of right eye right image left eye left image etc.

On the website POKESCOPE.COM there are a number of stereo images where the contributors to that forum have posted their stereo photos in a competition.

One of my favourites is the Grand Canyon photo, and if you "try the method" as described you will get the true 3D rendition with total depth and clarity, as long as you let the cursor hover over the reverse ikon while viewing the images so that if the 3D image isn't apparent at first, by reversing the images the 3D effect immediately jumps out of the screen.

BTW, don't try this at home....usual disclaimer.....it works for me.....do as you please.

Just one observation, if you fool the brain long enough it will accept the "new" condition as normal, and a return to a normal condition would take a period of relaxation until the brain re-orientates itself, probably why the present 3D type of viewing is brain dis-orientating to some degree, and driving in this condition is not advisable for a short while, not permanent but tempory.

I watched the TV 3D test transmission in HD using this method, and the images while compressed and narrow still appear in 3d but at half their width.

I think you would need an anamorphic lens arrangement to expand the TV images sideways to enable full size viewing, but that's another issue, at the moment I can view stereo pairs with the naked eye provide they can be reversed.

I would say that I would not like to view an hour long movie sitting crosseyed, but the method does work and probably a viewer based on the method could be devised, something like a modified opera glasses comes to mind.

Ian.

[Tweedledum]

To get started it is best to try a fixed image, rather than video, and one that is not too wide. This webpage explains the technique: http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase/ihelp.html

I find that I have to keep the total video width down to about half of the full width of my 60" SXRD set, for my vision to stay successfully cross-eyed. Given that the images are already in side by side format, this yields only one quarter normal viewing width. My 60" set becomes a 15" set! I don't know whether my viewing width capacity will improve with a bit of practice.

The technique relies on converging the eyes as if looking at something quite close, but focusing the eyes at the actual greater distance. This is not easy! But once you have your eyes correctly converged and focused it is not hard to keep the image clearly in view in 3D, including viewing video in 3D.

You cannot use this technique without reversing the order of the side by side images. Stereoscopic player can do the required swap for still images or video.

Hi MLXXX, just read your post again, the method with the DVD player reversal is a solution same as using a computor and I'm storing the info for further "research" LOL.

[MLXXX]

I now have two 23.6" 1920x1080 LCD monitors, which I can place side by side. Cross-eyed viewing is very clear, though for myself I can only take in a field of view of about 40 degrees, which limits the size of the 3D image.

I can get a wider view using the mirror technique previously described, but the image is not quite as clear, and it's inconvenient holding a mirror, if not totally dork like.

I'd like to order some pairs of prism 3D spectacles, but have not found an Australian supplier.

[Tweedledum]

I now have two 23.6" 1920x1080 LCD monitors, which I can place side by side. Cross-eyed viewing is very clear, though for myself I can only take in a field of view of about 40 degrees, which limits the size of the 3D image.

I can get a wider view using the mirror technique previously described, but the image is not quite as clear, and it's inconvenient holding a mirror, if not totally dork like.

I'd like to order some pairs of prism 3D spectacles, but have not found an Australian supplier.

Hi, I'll have to give the mirror method a try.

I've got a spare LCD monitor in the garage I bought at an auction, so maybe we'll have a "sophisticated" 3d viewer yet...LOL.

Some time ago I bought, on Ebay, a "virtual 80 TV" spectacle viewer, that has two LCD screens, about 30mm square, and you see a virtual 80" TV image as if it were a metre in front of you.

It gets it's signal from a DVD player etc and is a substitute for private viewing in place of a TV, cost about $350 on Ebay.

I wonder if it could be modified to give two seperate images for an "on head 3D viewer"?

Probably requires pulling apart (shock horror) to rewire for seperate L & R inputs.....not gonna happen!!! but would be an interesting project.

Ian.

[generalzod]

The movie studios thought by promoting there movies in 3d will stop piracy but failed...

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2010...ent_9264470.htm

[mwd]

The adverts for Panasonic 3D on 'One' HD don't do much to champion the cause :o

How to look a total cock with glasses on, BMW drivers in Top Gear parlance.

[Tweedledum]

The movie studios thought by promoting there movies in 3d will stop piracy but failed...

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2010...ent_9264470.htm

Hi, the piracy bit is the ultimate in desperation.

I remember some years ago on of my mates sneaking a portable casette tape recorder into a live stage show with one of the local bands........he tried to sell tapes of the show complete with background boomps and bangs and all the hollering and bawling the audience got up to, claimed it added to the atmosphere...never sold one tape....not even give away, LOL.

I reckon if anyone is so tight for cash as to buying a DVD made from someone "filming" a show from back in the audience, they've gotta be simple.

The old story of just so many people can aford to eat at the restrauant while the others hover around outside with their noses pressed against the windows and sniffing the food aroma, not a brass farthing between them, and then paying a penny to sort through the scraps afterwards is probably as close as the piracy thing from a camera in the audience scenario would get .

I paid $16 (senior citizen rates) to see Avatar in 2D, but I wouldn't dream of paying a quarter of that to get a rough pirated pseudo DVD, just depends on your priorities and expectations.

I think the movie producers are their own worse enemy, if'n they brought out the movie on DVD for $10 at the start, swamp the market so to say, they'd make a fortune, and I for one would see the movie in the theatre for a start and then go and buy the DVD.

Some movies you just gotta have, even if it's on DVD, Video tape or showing at your local theatre, just so's you can play it when you get the urge, but poor copies are out.

There is a scenario that goes, the British invented something and sold a couple for a huge amount, (Rolls Royce principal), the Japs copied it and sold a whole lot more, (cos that's what they did back then), and the Yanks also invented something and made a huge amount and sold them for 10 cents each (Woolworths principle) to anyone who wanted them, (whatever it was), knowing that nobody would bother copying them when the real thing was so cheap.

Moral of the story, if you invent/design/make something then it is pushing sh!t uphill with a sharp stick to try and expect to protect it by legislation no matter what the penalties.

If the movie makes a bomb in the theatre it goes without saying that you'll sell a ton if the price is right.

Avatar came out 2D at almost $30......did they never learn anything?....Now you can buy it at $16 (local supermarket) for the 2D version, typical closing the door when the mice have eaten the banquet.

I expect the story about original tapes being stolen, copied and mass produced still holds good, but that's the movie makers problem, more fool them for lack of security.

Ian.

[Tweet]

I now have two 23.6" 1920x1080 LCD monitors, which I can place side by side. Cross-eyed viewing is very clear, though for myself I can only take in a field of view of about 40 degrees, which limits the size of the 3D image.

I can get a wider view using the mirror technique previously described, but the image is not quite as clear, and it's inconvenient holding a mirror, if not totally dork like.

I'd like to order some pairs of prism 3D spectacles, but have not found an Australian supplier.

Here's an even dorkier suggestion, use a pair of binoculars at close quarters. ..

Oh ! ...and put a piece of cardboard between the front lenses.

C.M

Edited July 5, 2010 by Tweet

[DR.ZOIDBERG]

The adverts for Panasonic 3D on 'One' HD don't do much to champion the cause :o

How to look a total cock with glasses on, BMW drivers in Top Gear parlance.

Thats ALDI drivers now mate

[Tweedledum]

Here's an even dorkier suggestion, use a pair of binoculars at close quarters. ..

Oh ! ...and put a piece of cardboard between the front lenses.

C.M

Hi CM, now I know what my big nose is for, now if I can get my eyeballs to look straight ahead I'll see two images.......CARAMBA!!!!........it works.....I went outside and the whole world is 3D, and in full colour too, stereo sound as well, can it get any better......I think I'll lay off the turps for a while....walking around with a pair of binoculars on my head makes me walk into things... LOL.

[Tweet]

Hi CM, now I know what my big nose is for, now if I can get my eyeballs to look straight ahead I'll see two images.......CARAMBA!!!!........it works.....I went outside and the whole world is 3D, and in full colour too, stereo sound as well, can it get any better......I think I'll lay off the turps for a while....walking around with a pair of binoculars on my head makes me walk into things... LOL.

No wonder you're seeing double ........ Brandy is soooo much better.

C.M

Edited July 11, 2010 by Tweet

[shags38]

Why I Hate 3D Movies - (and you should too)

Interesting news article. Seems to follow some of the main concerns fellow forum members share about 3D TVs and the lack of true 3D content and it's all a marketing ploy to sell new equipment without bringing anything tangibly better in terms of content...

I didn't realise Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland weren't shot in 3D?

3D availability as an entertainment medium in the home is a great thing !! 3D in general is a great thing!! At the end of the day you have "choices" - watch it or not - you can also view excellent quality 2D FHD on 3D FHD Televisions so I do not see an issue. If something is on that is 3D and you don't want to watch it then watch it or something else in 2D.

Now HERE IS WHERE 3D WILL BE A HUGE SUCCESS and it is right in front of you as you read this - 3D COMPUTERS - or more correctly 3D Computer Monitors and a computer with a 3D Graphics card. Complete 3D Computer systems are already in production by some of the smaller manufacturers - we will see the proliferation from the big guys by mid next year. Watching 3D Movies on your new 3D BigScreen Monitor (switch from 3D to 2D with your new 3D active mouse or click the tab on the site you are on) - playing 3D GAMES on your computer - how awesome !!

So the advent of the new era of 3D entertainment is giving most of us more options which I think is a good thing, don't you?

(wait till 3D Cameras and 3D Phones hit the market next year also - kaboom!!)

cheers,

[mwd]

I think 3D gaming is going to be the big winner in the near future either on games consoles for the TV or Computer.

Everybody who has tried 3D gaming seems to blown away by it for a much more immersive experience.

[kitcho9]

I think 3D gaming is going to be the big winner in the near future either on games consoles for the TV or Computer.

Everybody who has tried 3D gaming seems to blown away by it for a much more immersive experience.

Not me - I've been a bit let down by 3D gaming so far.

Super Star Dust 3D is the best...but overall I've been disappointed.

MLB The Show 3D (baseball) is very disappointing.

Motorstorm 3D demo is disappointing.

Haven't tried Wipeout 3D demo yet

Pain 3D is very disappointing

I think gaming has the potential to be massive in 3D...but what is currently available is, well, disappointing.

[Overlytaxed]

I'm in the opposite camp Kitcho9

Haven't played MLB so can't comment on that. I've only played Pain for 30 secs, don't like the game so I can't really give an appraisal of that.

Loved Motorstorm, Wipeout and Superstardust in 3D, in that order as well. I'll definitely be purchasing Motorstorm 3D when the complete version is released. 3D gaming is a quantum leap in regards to immersing the player and enhancing playability. I'm not saying that the current crop of 3D games are stand out games in their own right. Essentially, the message I'm trying to convey is that in 2D these games are average at best, convert them to 3D and they become sensational. If you had the option of playing the games in either 2D or 3D, you would most definitely choose 3D, no doubt about that.

Cheers

[Puss in Books]

Now HERE IS WHERE 3D WILL BE A HUGE SUCCESS and it is right in front of you as you read this - 3D COMPUTERS.....

I can't wait. Soon we'll have 3D versions of Excel and PowerPoint. <shudder>

[shags38]

I can't wait. Soon we'll have 3D versions of Excel and PowerPoint. <shudder>

Billg8s is releasing his 3D excel g8sprogram through g8ssoftware early next year - when it is available come to me for some terrifically comfortable gr8 3D glasses :)