3D broadcsasts

I watched the 3D Olympic highlights on BBC HD this evening. I was not
surprised to be unimpressed.

As with the 3D cinema films I've seen, the objects appeared at
different depths, but had no noticable depth themselves, giving the
impression that the people were cardboard cutouts moved in front of
flat backgrounds. I'm not sure what causes this - perhaps there is
effectively very low resolution in the depth.

More bizarre was the kayak slalom, where the poles seemed to be at
peculiar depths. Often when a kayaker (if that's the word) approached
a pole he would appear to be on one side of it, but when he passed it
it would become apparent that he was on the other side. The effect
was somewhat Escher-esque.

A friend who watched it with me noticed the same effects, so it's
not just my eyes.

-- Richard

On 30/07/2012 04:13, Richard Tobin wrote:
I watched the 3D Olympic highlights on BBC HD this evening. I was not
surprised to be unimpressed.

As with the 3D cinema films I've seen, the objects appeared at
different depths, but had no noticable depth themselves, giving the
impression that the people were cardboard cutouts moved in front of
flat backgrounds. I'm not sure what causes this - perhaps there is
effectively very low resolution in the depth.

More bizarre was the kayak slalom, where the poles seemed to be at
peculiar depths. Often when a kayaker (if that's the word) approached
a pole he would appear to be on one side of it, but when he passed it
it would become apparent that he was on the other side. The effect
was somewhat Escher-esque.

A friend who watched it with me noticed the same effects, so it's
not just my eyes.

-- Richard

Some people cannot see the stereo effect at all. My wife is one of them.

Well when I could see I had one of those 3D binocular photo viewers, and
those had the cardboard cut out effect as well. My feeling on a lot of it is
that the spacing of the lenses and the amount of telephoto used on a given
picture has a great effect on the appearence of depth information.
Unfortunately when looking at where cameras have to be in sports events
etc, its probably an unavoidable side effect unless some kind of digital
enhancement can be used to make it look more natural.

Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
I watched the 3D Olympic highlights on BBC HD this evening. I was not
surprised to be unimpressed.

As with the 3D cinema films I've seen, the objects appeared at
different depths, but had no noticable depth themselves, giving the
impression that the people were cardboard cutouts moved in front of
flat backgrounds. I'm not sure what causes this - perhaps there is
effectively very low resolution in the depth.

More bizarre was the kayak slalom, where the poles seemed to be at
peculiar depths. Often when a kayaker (if that's the word) approached
a pole he would appear to be on one side of it, but when he passed it
it would become apparent that he was on the other side. The effect
was somewhat Escher-esque.

A friend who watched it with me noticed the same effects, so it's
not just my eyes.

-- Richard

On 30/07/2012 09:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well when I could see I had one of those 3D binocular photo viewers, and
those had the cardboard cut out effect as well. My feeling on a lot of it is
that the spacing of the lenses and the amount of telephoto used on a given
picture has a great effect on the appearence of depth information.
Unfortunately when looking at where cameras have to be in sports events
etc, its probably an unavoidable side effect unless some kind of digital
enhancement can be used to make it look more natural.

Brian

It's the same with binoculars, especially the compact ones with
objectives closer than the eyepieces. How far apart are the camera
lenses? It would seem that the telephoto shots would need more
separation so that the apparent angle at the effective distance is about
10cm.

--
Pete
Lose (rhymes with fuse) is a verb, the opposite of find. Loose (rhymes
with juice) is an adjective, the opposite of tight.

Richard Tobin wrote:
I watched the 3D Olympic highlights on BBC HD this evening. I was not
surprised to be unimpressed.

As with the 3D cinema films I've seen, the objects appeared at
different depths, but had no noticable depth themselves, giving the
impression that the people were cardboard cutouts moved in front of
flat backgrounds. I'm not sure what causes this - perhaps there is
effectively very low resolution in the depth.

Sometimes referred to as the puppet theatre effect. I haven't been very
conscious of this myself with the Olympic 3D material, but think it can
happen with telephoto shots if the 3D perspective is exaggerated and the
resolution is insufficient.


More bizarre was the kayak slalom, where the poles seemed to be at
peculiar depths. Often when a kayaker (if that's the word) approached
a pole he would appear to be on one side of it, but when he passed it
it would become apparent that he was on the other side. The effect
was somewhat Escher-esque.

Curiously enough, I watched and recorded some of the 3D highlights when
they were repeated this morning, and thought that the canoe slalom
material was particularly effective. I think I can see what you
mean about the poles. Certainly the canoeists didn't always pass the
poles on the side that I was expecting.

Obviously much depends on the nature of the material and the way it has
been handled. I think the 3D title sequences are just brilliant :-)

Yes, I can imagine walking about with a camera with lenses that slide apart
as you zoom.
I do remember binoculars back in the 80s doing this. Sitting on a cliff top
in Guernsey looking at the comings and goings at St Peter Port harbour, all
the ferries looked like cardboard cutouts.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Pete Shew" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 30/07/2012 09:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well when I could see I had one of those 3D binocular photo viewers, and
those had the cardboard cut out effect as well. My feeling on a lot of it
is
that the spacing of the lenses and the amount of telephoto used on a
given
picture has a great effect on the appearence of depth information.
Unfortunately when looking at where cameras have to be in sports events
etc, its probably an unavoidable side effect unless some kind of digital
enhancement can be used to make it look more natural.

Brian

It's the same with binoculars, especially the compact ones with objectives
closer than the eyepieces. How far apart are the camera lenses? It would
seem that the telephoto shots would need more separation so that the
apparent angle at the effective distance is about 10cm.

--
Pete
Lose (rhymes with fuse) is a verb, the opposite of find. Loose (rhymes
with juice) is an adjective, the opposite of tight.

In article , John
Legon
wrote:
Richard Tobin wrote:
I watched the 3D Olympic highlights on BBC HD this evening. I was not
surprised to be unimpressed.

As with the 3D cinema films I've seen, the objects appeared at
different depths, but had no noticable depth themselves, giving the
impression that the people were cardboard cutouts moved in front of
flat backgrounds. I'm not sure what causes this - perhaps there is
effectively very low resolution in the depth.

Sometimes referred to as the puppet theatre effect. I haven't been very
conscious of this myself with the Olympic 3D material, but think it can
happen with telephoto shots if the 3D perspective is exaggerated and the
resolution is insufficient.

How far apart are the lenses on the 3D cameras? Presumably that would let
us know the distances at which a point shifts sideways by one pixel in the
two pixel-arrays.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:52:56 +0100
Pete Shew wrote:

On 30/07/2012 09:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well when I could see I had one of those 3D binocular photo
viewers, and those had the cardboard cut out effect as well. My
feeling on a lot of it is that the spacing of the lenses and the
amount of telephoto used on a given picture has a great effect on
the appearence of depth information. Unfortunately when looking at
where cameras have to be in sports events etc, its probably an
unavoidable side effect unless some kind of digital enhancement can
be used to make it look more natural.

Brian

It's the same with binoculars, especially the compact ones with
objectives closer than the eyepieces. How far apart are the camera
lenses? It would seem that the telephoto shots would need more
separation so that the apparent angle at the effective distance is
about 10cm.


Ah, memories of Viewmaster! I still remember seeing The Canadian
Rockies for the first time through one of them.
--
Davey.
--
Davey.

"mikeos" wrote in message
...
On 30/07/2012 04:13, Richard Tobin wrote:
I watched the 3D Olympic highlights on BBC HD this evening. I was not
surprised to be unimpressed.

As with the 3D cinema films I've seen, the objects appeared at
different depths, but had no noticable depth themselves, giving the
impression that the people were cardboard cutouts moved in front of
flat backgrounds. I'm not sure what causes this - perhaps there is
effectively very low resolution in the depth.

More bizarre was the kayak slalom, where the poles seemed to be at
peculiar depths. Often when a kayaker (if that's the word) approached
a pole he would appear to be on one side of it, but when he passed it
it would become apparent that he was on the other side. The effect
was somewhat Escher-esque.

A friend who watched it with me noticed the same effects, so it's
not just my eyes.

-- Richard

Some people cannot see the stereo effect at all. My wife is one of them.

Do both her eyes work?

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

How far apart are the lenses on the 3D cameras? Presumably that would let
us know the distances at which a point shifts sideways by one pixel in the
two pixel-arrays.

As font antialising shows, we can interpret intermediate levels to
resolve an edge to better than pixel resolution, so it shouldn't be
quite that bad. But of course we are looking at a lossily-compressed
image.

-- Richard