Slashdot Mirror
DVD Player Displays 2D Movies in 3D
Anonymous Writer writes "A company called Dynamic Digital Depth that wants to bring 3D television and movies to the mainstream claims to have developed a system that allows you to watch current 2D DVDs in 3D.
They claim the TriDef DVD Player uses image analysis methods, developed by the company for their 3D content conversion service, to convert 2D video to 3D in real-time based on 3D depth cues in the original movie.
It is the same company that produced the TriDef Movie Player software for the Sharp Actius R3D3 autostereo display notebook.
"
if this will be succesfull The idea sounds cool though. Maybe even more cool for the porn fans out there :) (You know who you are)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Hmmm.. so what happens if I watch Spy Kids:3D on this? Will it upconvert me to 4D?
Hmmm.
I haven't RTFA, but I'm dubious about this claim. There simply isn't enough information in a 2D image to construct a 3D image. If there were, your brain would already do it (and, in fact, already does to a limited extent). I don't see how computer technology is going to improve on what your brain can already do.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
3D always makes me nauseous. Does it come with barf bags?
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
This "extra dimension" must be copywritten; I only paid for two. What should I do about this? Call my lawyer? Oh dear. :(
I remember reading about converting 2D movies to 3D when I was at primary school. Since then I've been through secondary school, two university courses and two jobs, and I'm still no closer to being able to watch the things.
Still, I look forward to being able to read ten years down the line about an amazing new device that can display current 2D movies in 3D.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
DDD AND nWAVE PICTURES SIGN DISTRIBUTION DEAL FOR 3D CONTENT
Hmmm.
You watch a 3-D movie on this thing do you watch it in 4-D? (really 5-D)
Would that signal the Apocalypse, or just the Age of Aquarius?
Wrap your mind around that...
My other sig is extremely clever...
tsk.. I think we all know what kind of movies every ./er is thinking of right now..
Yup.. Hot Linus action... In 3D!!
Has there been an independent review on this technology? I notice all of the links in the story point at the vendor's web site. Until then, call me a skeptic
Or is this just an ad story?
Oh great, now I'm gonna be ducking and dodging when I watch my Sci-Fi shows. Although Stargate in 3D would be pretty damned cool.
Imagine if this could work for video games.
That would make Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball all the much cooler to play
Evolution or ID?
I can't imagine what this would actually add to the viewing experience. It's a novelty at best, and a distraction from the experience as it was originally intended at worse.
I remember going to see "Jaws 3D" when it came out when I was in high school. After the first floating fish went by and you got over the urge to reach out and try to grab it... well you had 2 more hours of that. woo hoo.
Who cares?
No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.
I'm also firmly believe that VR and 3D displays are the Next Big Thing (TM) - atleast I hope it is. So I say more power to Sharp, DDD and other folks who're trying to make my dream a reality.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced by their "image analysis" based on depth cues:
hey claim the TriDef DVD Player uses image analysis methods, developed by the company for their 3D content conversion service, to convert 2D video to 3D in real-time based on 3D depth cues in the original movie.
As far as I can see converting current 2D media to 3D would require a great deal of human intervention - there's only so much that you can glean from image analysis (possibly hidden edges, object sizes and other CG cues). The bottom line is that it would take a human to tell if which of the two objects on the screen are supposed to be closer to the viewer. That alone IMHO would kill any efforts to bring this to the mainstream media business - it would be more fruitful to focus on cheaper/better techniques to create new 3D media.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Great another item beside my tv flashing 12:00 endlessly !
Having another 8 bits of information for depth. You could then do this easily. Not sure how the hell you'd capture that info though.
Now what's this going to cost me? About $1,000,000 USD?
Can someone shed some light on this subject? This to me seems like the perpetual-motion machine. Some company always claims you will see in 3D w/o using glasses. Is this theoretically possible? I mean without actually recreating a 3D scene in front of you, is it theoretically possible for a 2D device to make you see in 3D w/o any special apparatus that you put in front of your eyes? It seems like the holy grail of 3D.
Must-not-watch TV!
Looks flat on my monitor. This is crud.
Just like all those digital HDTVs they keep advertising on telly. They look no better picture wise than my 14" portable.
Surely a realtime playing device like this cannot build something 3D out of something 2D? We as humans have to look twice at some things to tell their depth on screen, and in real life you'll note that it's very hard, if you close one eye, so how is a machine going to work this out, in real time, with a 2D video, and no discernable knowledge of the subject or context?
:-P
Any in any case, will people buy it? Are 3D glasses and green-red IMAX films not good enough?
$ mv *.sig >/dev/null
I'd be more interested to see how the 3d display work, myself.
I worked on a system like this for broadcast TV and VHS tapes back in the mid '90s. Consumers didn't want stereoscopic 3D then and I doubt they want it now.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
to capture the information based on filters. This filter would "pre" read the clip information and then convert the "blurry" or background images and then move the primary "focal point" image further towards the "front" of the clip.
A bunch of Tech Stuff
If 3d was impressive enough to sell lots of units, they'd still be making lots of 3d movies. They aren't, because the technology for displaying 3d is still not impressive enough nor widely spread. Once there is truly impressive 3d displays that can be widely deployed, the content will come naturally.
As an aside, I'd love to see Pixar render out a version of Finding Nemo for IMAX 3D - I think it'd be amazing, and would be a relatively small cost. If it was a success, they could do their whole catalog.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
on my 2d flat screen!
IF this technology comes to market, I could imagine some anime people thinking it would be fun to play around with this and make things look all weird (so that the background is right in your face, while the foreground is far away - or a person whose leg is near you, but whose face is far and have objects pass each other in ways that would look fine in 2D but would look weird in 3D).
In short, this could bring us a whole new world of experimental film. Interesting, if true.
-CPM
---You're all I need, When the water runs deep, You're all I need, Now I cry my soul to sleep -- Collective Soul, Needs
Yep, and we know how well ATi's TrueForm(TM) works even when it has 3D data.
Automatically changing 1 thing to another without information is impossible. You must know enough about it (have enough prior information) to make resonable assumptions about how it should look. I suspect this technology is about 30 years away. Right along side face recognition.
Equally unbelieveing.
Yes this is possible. All you need to do is make sure that each eye sees a different image, which is *possible* without glasses.
All the techniques i'm aware of do depend on a very particular viewer location though.
Reading /. in 3D- how exiting!
My other sig is a Porsche!
OK, I'm curious to see it--but I don't believe a word of it. My brain is capable of converting 2D presentations into 3D using depth cues. I suspect my brain is better at it than their software is. And that wherever their software falls short, there will be an intense mental irritation factor.
In the fifties, a sound engineer whose name escapes me devoted a _lot_ of effort to applying electronic filtering to add a stereo effect to Toscanini's recordings, with the idea that he was preserving them for posterity. Toscanini's recordings and reputation have survived, but it's noteworthy that all the CD remasterings are in mono.
I don't think I've seen any upsurge of interest in "colorized" black-and-white movies, either.
I would expect automatic 3D to suffer from the same issues as colorizing: problems at the edges where things are entering the frame, problems with things that are in the background and hence out of focus, scenes that consists of thousands of moving objects (crowds, tree leaves flexing in the wind, sunlight glancing off rippling water) where the cues are imprecise and the computational effort needed to track thousands of objects is intense...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I can just imagine the processing speed required for all those computations. How about getting some of those speed in my 3D card!
Choice quote:
In short: Dynamic Digital Death's 'TryDeath' DVD Player plays 2D DVDs in 3D by converting 2D video to 3D based on 3D death cues.
Binocular disparity only works out to a few metres distance. Beyond that you use different cues. Consider some papers by my supervisor, for example: A laminar cortical model of monocular and binocular interactions in depth perception, Neural Dynamics Of 3-D Surface Perception: Figure-Ground Separation And Lightness Perception
Sure I'll be able to watch 3d live-action movies on this thing, but what about hand drawn 2d animation?
I would assume that the 3d image is generated by comparing the different hues and contrast between pixels or elements in an image. How would this work with animated characters, where most areas are colored in a same uniform color? Would it look like your're looking at a bunch of cardboard cutouts in front of a backdrop?
Then again, cardboard cutouts pretty much describe most of the characters I see in modern movies anyways...
Sorry - I just have this image of all the edxecs running around demoing this thing looking like Bill Macy in "The Jerk"...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
You are kidding, right?
... was... amazing. Much more so then I had seen before... thought before.
I was skepical myself of how "great" HDTV could be until I was at walmart by some off chance, and they had an HDTV program on this time rather then a regular signal... and it
If you really have that opionion, then you havent REALLY experienced HDTV yet.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
"Just like all those digital HDTVs they keep advertising on telly. They look no better picture wise than my 14" portable."
You are so naive for a slashdotter. For stuff to look good on an HDTV, you have to have HD programming. By you saying "Telly," I suspect you are from the UK, where HD programming is very lacking. If you watch cr@p on an HDTV, it will look very similar to your 14" "portable."
BUT if you watch the FA Cup final (let's assume it is broadcast in HD and you have an HD tuner and an HDTV), it will look 100x times better on the HDTV (Again, with proper settings) over watching the game on your 14" "portable" picking up the SD (Standard definition) signal...
Before you bash HDTV's, you really should do your homework, especially if you are a true slashdotter...
Give you a taste ... Holla. Ain't no stoppin me. Copywritten, so don't you copy me.
Missy Elliot
Salma in 4D! Now we're talking. :)
" software for the Sharp Actius R3D3 autostereo display "
Actually it's RD3D, but damn R3D3 would have been a cool name for that product. Heh.
"Derp de derp."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If 3d was impressive enough to sell lots of units, they'd still be making lots of 3d movies. They aren't, because the technology for displaying 3d is still not impressive enough nor widely spread.
There's also the difficulty that the shooting needs to be specifically planned for 3D. Otherwise there is a risk of the result looking silly or even inducing motion sickness.
I've found a good test
image
for this technology.
The website blurs the line between discussing the automatic conversion of 2D movies (like the ones I have sitting by my DVD player right now) and 3D movies recorded in a standard 2D format DVD. I have no problem believing that a 3D movie encoded into a standard DVD can be viewed in full 3D. However, I was curious about the 'patented technology', so I went to the USPTO site and read the patent. It appears from the patent that the result of conversion from 2D to 3D is that it will take various 'objects' in the 2D image, outline them, and raise them off the screen. I have a strong feeling that you will get a Duke Nuk'em 3D image out of it, not the 3D you'd expect for the price of the 3D monitor and their converter system. I can't see that catching on.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
They cannot re-render into 3D because all 3D movies are composites where many seperate renders were put together to create a final image. They don't just render the whole scene. There is also a large amount of painting done to add other effects and to remove glitches in the render.
I stumbled on to this by accident a while back. You're obviously familiar with those stereogram images (look at infinity and a 3D surface emerges from a bunch of "random" dots). The trick is to give each eye different information.
I wondered, instead of doing this spacially, could one do it temporially? The answer is _YES_.
Open two copies of QuickTime and load the same movie in each. Put the two windows side-by-side. Now, advance the right one just a few frames (the arrow keys can do it). Then start BOTH running at the same time. (It usually takes a mouse click in one window and a keyboard focus on the other window to get this to happen.)
Now you have the same movie running side-by-side, although one is just a little off from the other.
No cross your eyes and produce an overlay of the two images. Obviously, smaller frames are easier on the eyes. Eventually your eyes will focus on the overlap, just as it does with the posters, and you can easily hold focus.
Surprise -- the movie has DEPTH. It's in 3D.
The only thing I can figure is that each eye gets a little different signal, and your brain has to piece the information together; when it does, you get 3D.
Normally you can use the red-blue glasses, sterograms, or hidden patterns in dots to do this. You can also get a similar effect by watching television with one eye closed (you're taking cues based on shadows and such), or, by having one eye look through a darkened filter. Not sure why that happens, but I suspect the difference between the left and right eye kick in the extra steps that trick the brain.
"It's almost like you could..."
*walks up to the screen*
*whips it out*
*screams in pain as weeny is stuffed accidently in power outlet*
to take the red and green pixels and move them slightly off a bit like a real 3D movie does. The shadows and other details will be seen as 3D.
I recall that there was photo editing software that did this to 2D picture images, so it is possible to do it to a 2D movie in real-time should the CPU be fast enough to do it.
To quote that Wendy's lady from the 1980's "Where's the beef?" I searched those sites and could not even find a demo! Is it vaporware or real?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
...you insensitive clod!
It looks like your humour was wasted on some...
Um... did his joke, like, offend you or something?
Lighten up.
A lot of these problems have been solved naturally with:
1. Using CGI for special effects rather than physical entities who's actual characteristics need to be hidden.
2. More use of on-location shooting (rather than sets designed to be filmed from one angle)
3d gives more information. As long as this information is there, this isn't a problem. You're definitely correct in noting the potential problem - but I think it's very solvable.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
There is something about taking spelling a little too serious. Guess your english teacher's hot, right?
If you are talking about a still frame, then real 3D seems as hard as you suggest.
But in a movie, the camera is moving pretty often, as are objects in a scene. If you look at a number of frames in a row you can get a pretty good idea of depth by how things move in relation to each other, or by natural reotation of an object (liek a person turn thier face).
All the DVD player needs to do is "read ahead" as it were to figure out what depth objects should have in a given scene. I'm sure there are all sorts of cheats you can do that would add fiarly correct looking depth to an object that would fall apart if you were trying to create a full 3D model, but which work great for 3D images on a screen.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sounds like the 3D projection we saw in Minority Report, where subjects pop out of the scenery.
I would think technologies that "convert" 2D to 3D could combine a few seperate methods to achieve this:
1) Detect focus. Most films and TV shows operate on the basic rules that the actors/items in the foreground are in focus, and the background is in varying degrees of soft focus. The system could make certain assumptions based on location in the frame and combine that with how "soft" the image is, and use MPEG data to get a good read. (MPEG compressions store "noise/compression" in soft focus-- there might be a very simple way to hand up z-buffer info on decompression.
2) Motion analysis/compensation. Many 2D/3D compositing programs can track objects through a moving scene. Create some basic algorithms to detect "objects" in a scene, then track them in realtime. Use other data to determine Zdepth, and render in 3D.
1/2b) Focus/Edge detection. Scenes like spaceship battles have objects that are much more detailed flying through a patterned, fairly uniform BG. Using data from methods 1 & 2, you can push these "objects" closest to the viewer.
3)Brigness/hilight cues. Some basic functions to determine how "bright" an object is in a scene might be used to bring things forward. After all, this is what artists use to bring depth to 2D images...
It's important to note that these things (and probably the technology in the article) won't be "gimmicky" 3d-- ie. objects that appear to come out of the set towards your face.. However, it will give the image some "depth" in the same way that video games have used multiple scrolling backgrounds to create depth for years now.. Which is basically what this probably is-- stripping the 2D frame down into "layers" and then putting those layers out to 3D.. using color masking or polarization methods...
Reminds me of the VisuaLABS scandal. This guy fooled investors and squandered millions of dollars on his revolutionary 3D television which was nothing but an off-the-shelf large screen TV with a couple of lines etched into it and some camera tricks to give the illusion of depth. The founder (Sheldon Zelitt) was a bit of a wacko - spent his time in his inventor's studio playing with "optics" - which usually meant doing bizarre and childish things like gluing magnifying glasses to pennies with superglue (I made up that example, but you get the idea). I think he also once wooed investors with a parabolic mirror magic trick which I guess none of them had ever seen. More info here.
A lot of the information this process would be interested in (what parts of the frame are moving, what direction/speed, and relative to what other areas) is already used in MPEG-style compression (which I mean mpeg1/videoCD, mpeg2/DVD, mpeg4/divx...) in order to save space by copy & pasting sligtly diff'd image chunks along paths rather than storing every little piece of every frame.
I wonder if this technique uses and/or depends on those MPEG motion cues, or if it does all its own image/motion analysis? It would mean the difference between being a specific- or general-purpose movie 3d-ifying tool.
(btw wading through the Princess Leias was pretty funny but this is off-topic now :p).
The early 1990's called. They want their overused hype back.
... disney use? Whatever they use at Disney land is cool, it looks so real too. The glasses are clear afaik, it was a long time ago, and I don't remember much about it except how cool it looked.
Sig: I stole this sig.
I still don't think it's a good idea. Much like colorizing black & white movies, this is changing a movie beyond what the original director ever intended. Even if you're not a purist about this sort of thing, the results would probably still be lousy because it was never in the directors mind in the first place.
No, not 3D films, but I've made single stereoscopic images from multiple frames from television. A scene in which the camera has transverse motion is best; two frames can easily have the same vantage point spacing as a person's eyes. Motion of the actors works also (if everybody is moving in the same direction.) Good stereoscopic effects can even be achieved when the actor is rotating. The key is to get two different viewpoints for the same object. The effect is dramatically more vivid than anything my brain can devive from 2D television.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Directors will complain that 3D-izing violates their artistic integrity.
"My movie was written and directed for the flat screen!"
yada yada yada
I don't know if it was reported here, but there is a module that maps opengl output to steroscopic output. It is designed for UT2003, but also seems to work with neverball, ....
u relab.aec.at/vrizer/
It's not the same as reported here and it is not opensource as far as I know, but maybe interesting ?
You get 3d, but you need the glasses. Someone reported it seems to work with movies as well, but I haven't tried it yet.
http://happypenguin.org/show?VRizer
http://fut
Well, there are a lot of reasons but one that many don't know about is this.
But first a bit of background.
I was actually able to see a prototype of a (very low powered) laser that draws an image onto your retina. This was like maybe 5 years ago and it was the size of a full size freezer.
By looking into something that is quite similar to a viewfinder attached to the said freezer sized prototype, you could see an image. The cool part, is that you don't actually need a background "black" and hence the image can float in the air for you while you look at other things. They predict this device could be stuck on a pair of glasses (or sunglasses) in the future ala terminator overlay style. Yes, I saw it work but at the time it was the huge prototype.
I know how regular 3D works with one image to the left and one image to the right. But one of the big problems is that your eye cannot FOCUS on the image because to you an image might look like it is close to your face (via the left/right eye difference) but the actual image is far back where the screen is. This disparity causes you to feel nauseous. But a laser (and they hadn't done this yet) could modulate to place the image focally where it's supposed to be.
To make this more clear, if I drop a pebble in a pond, the curve of the ripple is different when I am near the drop point (very curved) compared to when I am far away (almost linear). In real life, the curve of the things you look at are all different based on how close/far they are. In 3D MOVIES, the line is always the same shape but your brain is interpreting it as either closer or farther (or is trying to anyways). Whamo. Instant headaches and nausea because your brain is having trouble figuring out what you are actually seeing the object.
Sunny
Be my Friend
19" with basically one tranparent back screen in front of another for 3D modelling type things... but that was more of an extension of those stupid red/blue 3d glasses things...
I'll be more impressed when actual demos and off-site reviews hit.
I think most upscale places use polarized (often "circular polarized" whose operation I don't grok) glasses. They're fairly clear - well, kind of darkish but colors are preserved - and work well. But they also require two projectors, glasses for everyone, and a certain head orientation (a minor point for movies). They're certainly better than anaglyph (red/blue type glasses) or whatever you call the dark/light "parade-on-TV" glasses.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
You insensitive clod!
According to the patent: (USPTO#) 6,477,267
The displacement of the mesh sub-points may also be defined by a mathematical algorithm to thereby provide for automatic conversion of images. Further enhancements to the method could be to add shadow, blurring and motion interpolation data to the conversion data including force paralex information and field delay and direction for motion paralex delays.
Check out the patent for a full explanation of the technology.
They cannot re-render into 3D because all 3D movies are composites where many seperate renders were put together to create a final image
That's just wrong. Any conventional 3d movie requires just this: two regular sets of images shot or rendered from slightly different angles. Each eye is then presented with one of these, and the brain sees 3d. This is how eyes work.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Anybody else notice the connection in the names?
Dynamic Digital Depth = DDD = 3D
There isn't enough information in a single 2D image to construct a 3d image, but there's more information in a series of 2d images, such as a video clip. For example, an object moving through the scene shown covers and uncovers background, so this tells us that object is in front of the background, and the background is behind the object. Through various forms of such interpolation, a fair amount of 3d information can be drawn out of an image as long as either things in the scene move or the camera does.
This isn't new technology. I've had a similar device for a good six months now. I got the Virtual FX made by I-O Display Systems. The quality of its output depends on the quality of its source material, and it ranges from just okay (talk shows really just don't look that exciting for example) to quite shockingly good (Moulin Rouge is absolutely amazing).Funny you should say that. With a little help, the brain can actually do the 3D interpolation I describe above. It's called Pulfrich 3D, and requires that you watch video in which the camera is moving from side to side, or rotating, or circling its subject, or objects are moving across the scene from one side to the opposite, and that you wear a simple set of glasses with a shaded lens over one eye. (Which eye depends on the direction of motion on screen.) So, it might work very well with NASCAR, but probably won't work at all with The Ellen Degeneres Show. When it does work, it's really stunning: you suddenly see very natural-looking depth in the screen. When things stop moving, it's also stunning: everything suddenly becomes flat.If you're in the Boston area, please send me email, and it will be my pleasure to drop by sometime with the equipment so we can toy with it together for an hour or two, and you'll be amazed. I might even be able to scrounge up some Pulfrich glasses so you can compare.
Imagine if this could work for video games.
...
http://nvidia.com/content/drivers/drivers.asp
Select "Consumer 3D Stereo"
The software's free, but it's only for windows 2000/xp PCs with some kind of nVidia graphics card. There's a piece of commercial software out there if you don't have a nvidia card, but I forget what it's called.
Currently, "VR" is being used by large organizations, to do things that aren't otherwise easily possible - companies like Caterpillar use VR technology to simulate their tractors and place controls, and work out (via the simulation) where windows and controls need to be placed to allow the operator optimum view and comfort. The DOD has their "dismounted soldier" project, which aims to combine various "VR" technology (including new devices like 360 degree treadmills, developed for the project), real equipment, and other elements to train soldiers in a virtual combat simulation (while allowing other groups/soldiers from around the world to participate in the exercise with real equipment in the same simulation). Auto companies use "VR" technology for similar uses as Caterpillar does, to help design and build safer automobiles. Doctors are exploring virtual surgery - both for training purposes, as well as for endoscopic visualization use.
"VR" HMDs have become way more advanced than what the early 1990's offered - take a look at Kaiser Electro Optics lineup sometime, and be envious that you likely can't afford the top of the line models for a good FPS frag session (hell, what am I saying - even their bottom-of-the-barrel old tech is out of the price range of most /.ers). If you want to see what might come out for consumer use in the future (I can't imagine people would want to continue to play 3D FPS games and not look around - and don't say "it's too much work" - look at DDR, which is a much more active game), get an old Virtuality Visette 2 display and hook it up - old tech, 640x480 with 60 degree FOV - but with the full immersion - wow.
Finally, why do I keep referencing "VR" with quotes? Well, the fact is that "VR" is really the pop expression - you won't hear (much) the words "virtual reality" being thrown around in the simulation and data visualization industry. The last expression I heard was "virtual environment modeling", but that has been several years back - I don't believe the word "virtual" is used anymore in the industry, simply because of the negative connotations it has gained over the years since its "demise". The main thing holding back mass adoption of any of this technology by consumers is the lack of a "killer app". One would think 3D FPS games would fill this niche easily (the idea of a game system, similar to a Virtual Boy, but using full color OLED displays, the HMD being worn, cartridge or mini-disc software being inserted into a slot in the HMD, a cable from that to a joystick, the HMD using a passive mag tracked/tilt sensor package for sourceless 3DOF tracking, and simple tilt sensors ala a Cyberpuck - isn't too outlandish - but if it would sell or not?) - but for some reason, they just aren't (not yet, anyhow). 3D desktop/window managers aren't going to do it. The killer app has yet to arrive, but when (or if) it does, it might spawn a revolution in computer use not seen since the internet popped up (which, incidentally, also helped kill the first round of "VR" adoption - though had the hardware been more fully developed, could have enabled it instead)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
The image shown would "vibrate", it moved wonky, but there definitely was depth to the image. You could record the image, and play it back, and it was still there - a form of 3D that required no changes in broadcast or recording equipment, no glasses needed to view, and no special viewing system to watch - in short, it allowed 3D to be created by anyone, to be viewed by anyone (as long as they had one working eyeball!), on any standard video equipment. I have never seen this technology demonstrated anywhere else, nor did the company which presented its work (along with video clips that were fun to watch) go on to produce these boxes for sale - the technology and the company just seemed to "vanish" (is it any wonder?).
The closest I have been able to find about how this technology works can be seen here. Please note that the site has "not safe for work" imagery on it...
This site's images, along with another poster's (below) comments about "temporal 3D" via running two movies out of sync, basically gives me a clue as to what they were originally doing:
I believe (now) that the box was somehow delaying the signal, every other frame, then interpolating those frames in/among the regular video frames and sending them down the wire. This isn't a very good explanation - basically, they were doing a combination of the temporal viewing with the "flicker GIF" of two stereo views (but without stereo, just time between the two frames) to generate the image. At the time, it must have been really expensive (for the RAM to buffer the image, etc) - although I wonder if they could have been de-interlacing frames and sending/reconstituting the frames by double-lacing the de-interlaced frames to make up the lost pixels, then showing each one (because each field of the frame would be out of sync by 1/15 second - maybe enough time to do the temporal 3D? - and it wouldn't require more than simple electronics rather than RAM buffering).
Aside from the flicker 3D images on the web (ie, those two different angle 3D animated GIF's like I noted above) - does anybody else remember seeing that episode of "That's Incredible", or anything else about the device? The episode was on in the mid-1980's or so...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
In 3D films, the directors can make it look like stuff is popping out of the screen, and certainly they do, but really they shouldn't. Every time they do that particular trick you basically have to go cross-eyed to see it correctly, and doing it much causes eye strain.
Better to use 3D more naturally and converge at screen depth. The effect still looks fresh and real, and the audience doesn't get a splitting headache after a while.
Incidentally, some 3D films have been almost entirely filmed so the picture seems to be "from the screen backwards", such as House of Wax. They're a real pleasure to watch.
It simply wasn't very interesting in 3D, so I went back to enjoying it in 2D.
For better or for worse, Enterprise looks kinda nice in 3D. Lots of perspective shots.
...the BBC used this a few years ago for a charity fundraiser night (Children in Need) where they had lots of popular BBC progs (eastenders, a special doctor who etc.) in 3d, you bought glasses, one eye with a slightly dark filter and it looked like it was in 3d.
I assume this is a similar effect to what happens if you are looking at a cellphone screen in the dark. Try moving the cellphone around. The cellphone screen seems to "overshoot" or follow later than the actual cellphone. Maybe your eye sees dark things before or after light things which has the same effect as moving quicktime forward a few frames?
I am NaN
As much as I love Silent Hill, I think it'd be even better when the monsters come out of the screen.
anata sekai o kakumei surush ga nai deshou? Anata no susumu michi wa yoi shite arimasu.
I've seen DDD's plasma conversion kit in action. The movies and videos that I've seen on it looks quite 3d - videos that weren't shot in 3d (like a madonna video). You'll believe it when you see it.
Changing the way a copyright protected audiovisual work is presented can raise various legal problems. Remember the DGA v. Clearplay case? There is a legal interest of the author or who owns the copytight in the integrity of their works, and it can be protected in many different ways (Moral rights, although not in the States; Lanham Act art. 43 (a); the economic content of the authors reputation; freedom of speech, etc.). I'm a lawyer, but not in the States, so please excuse my english.
The French Line (1954)
Advertising tag line: "J.R. in 3D. It'll knock both your eyes out!"
(J.R. == Jane Russell: 39D - 26.5 - 37.5)
I'm pretty sure there are ways to adjust for having the camera move, I'm not even totally convinced that would even be a problem as such a situation would yield similar data...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I know what you were syaing in terms of using movement to determine relative positioning. But possibly there is some way to infer the camera is moving, and thus correct for that situation.
As for the "Correct" answer for LOTR, in the case of a DVD player trying to convert a scene to 3D, the correct anwer is to reproduce the 2D scene as faithfully as possibly, so you'd want to honor the effect of forced perspective.
For two people talking inside a room the data comes from the natural movement of the two people - fidgiting, head turning, etc. You you'd have a bit of a problem with Lector in "Silence of the lambs". Then you'd have to cheat a little and probably simulate some 3D based on known shapes (you see a human looking shape in a scene and jut map the video over a 3D generic human).
I'm not saying it's easy, but I think there are paths that you can take that get you pretty close. And the great thing is, the shorter the scene the worse your error, but also the less noticable to the viewer because the scene is short.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe i could record the movie with a camcorder and put it on the net
Man, this would make some movies actually scary/fun/kind of interesting to watch... I'm thinking like, 1984, Equilibrium, LOTR... anything with a horde of people/orc creatures/whatever...
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com)