3D broadcsasts

Jim Lesurf wrote:

But maybe 3D is just another way to get people to buy (another)
'new TV set'. :-)

Personally, I love watching TV in 3D and think it greatly enhances the
viewing experience. It's something that tickles my visual taste buds.
But some people just don't seem to get it at all.

I see myself as being visually orientated, but others may have varying
degrees of stereo 3D perception, just as some people are partially or
completely colour blind. I suspect that many subscribers to this
newsgroup are of a certain age and have impaired vision in any case.
The instructions for my 3D TV actually state that "seniors" should
refrain from watching TV in 3D !!

Many have spent good money on 2D tellies and don't want to be told that
their equipment is now obsolete. Some people dislike having to wear
special glasses. There is also the fact that the usual viewing systems
have technical limitations, and I put off buying a 3D TV and devised my
own 3D viewing system using two monitors. But when Sainsburys brought
out a 42" 3D TV at basement bargain price, the temptation to buy one was
irresistible.

Bill Turnbull on Breakfast TV this morning said he was dubious about 3D
TV, but watched the Olympic highlights last night and thought the 3D was
amazing. He failed to mention that the show is repeated on BBC HD at
least from 7:00 to 9:00 am the following morning.

--
John L

In article ,
John Legon wrote:

I suspect that many subscribers to this
newsgroup are of a certain age and have impaired vision in any case.

Of course some people may have poor vision. But others have excellent
vision and just don't think 3D television and film are very good.
They don't complain that they can't see the 3D effect: they complain
that it's unrealistic. In fact, it is likely to be the people with
better stereo vision who can see how poor it is.

-- Richard

"John Legon" wrote in message
o.uk...
Jim Lesurf wrote:

But maybe 3D is just another way to get people to buy (another)
'new TV set'. :-)

Personally, I love watching TV in 3D and think it greatly enhances the
viewing experience. It's something that tickles my visual taste buds. But
some people just don't seem to get it at all.

I see myself as being visually orientated, but others may have varying
degrees of stereo 3D perception, just as some people are partially or
completely colour blind. I suspect that many subscribers to this
newsgroup are of a certain age and have impaired vision in any case. The
instructions for my 3D TV actually state that "seniors" should refrain
from watching TV in 3D !!

Many have spent good money on 2D tellies and don't want to be told that
their equipment is now obsolete. Some people dislike having to wear
special glasses. There is also the fact that the usual viewing systems
have technical limitations, and I put off buying a 3D TV and devised my
own 3D viewing system using two monitors. But when Sainsburys brought out
a 42" 3D TV at basement bargain price, the temptation to buy one was
irresistible.

Bill Turnbull on Breakfast TV this morning said he was dubious about 3D
TV, but watched the Olympic highlights last night and thought the 3D was
amazing. He failed to mention that the show is repeated on BBC HD at
least from 7:00 to 9:00 am the following morning.

I think it's more a matter of the constant desire to 'chase reality' and
make what isn't real appear real, for a time, until our clever brains catch
up.

Paintings to photographs.

Still photographs to moving pictures. (Remember the story of people
recoiling from a cine film of a train approaching them along a platform.)

Monochrome to colour.

Now 2D to 3D.

In the future binocular 3D to holograms.

Some time ago I was watching TV - in front of a window - and my eye wandered
to a cat outside walking about. When I looked back to the screen, for a
moment, the picture looked much more 'real' somehow, and then it reverted.

Our brains will always twig that the image isn't real eventually.

--
Max Demian

On 30/07/2012 18:08, Brian Gaff wrote:
I remember seeing those when I was at school in the 60s, and thought they
would be really cool, if a little awkward to take on holiday!

Brian


On TV a little while ago they had a woman that could see in 3d who
previously could not and she described the cardboard cut out effect. it
is because it is new to the viewer.

cannot remember the programme I think it was on BBC

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:26:34 +0100, John Legon
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

But maybe 3D is just another way to get people to buy (another)
'new TV set'. :-)

Personally, I love watching TV in 3D and think it greatly enhances the
viewing experience. It's something that tickles my visual taste buds.
But some people just don't seem to get it at all.

I see myself as being visually orientated, but others may have varying
degrees of stereo 3D perception, just as some people are partially or
completely colour blind. I suspect that many subscribers to this
newsgroup are of a certain age and have impaired vision in any case.
The instructions for my 3D TV actually state that "seniors" should
refrain from watching TV in 3D !!

Many have spent good money on 2D tellies and don't want to be told that
their equipment is now obsolete.

Especially when it isn't.

Some people dislike having to wear
special glasses. There is also the fact that the usual viewing systems
have technical limitations, and I put off buying a 3D TV and devised my
own 3D viewing system using two monitors. But when Sainsburys brought
out a 42" 3D TV at basement bargain price, the temptation to buy one was
irresistible.

Bill Turnbull on Breakfast TV this morning said he was dubious about 3D
TV, but watched the Olympic highlights last night and thought the 3D was
amazing. He failed to mention that the show is repeated on BBC HD at
least from 7:00 to 9:00 am the following morning.

How many events are being shown in 3D?

The opening and closing ceremonies, plus the 100 metres final live on BBC
HD. And a 60 minute "roundup" late evening, repeated early morning on BBC
HD, compiled by Olympic Broadcasting Services.
Eurosport HD is showing lots of coverage in 3D - see
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/e...091240127.html

--
JohnT

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
John Legon wrote:

I suspect that many subscribers to this
newsgroup are of a certain age and have impaired vision in any case.

Of course some people may have poor vision. But others have excellent
vision and just don't think 3D television and film are very good.
They don't complain that they can't see the 3D effect: they complain
that it's unrealistic. In fact, it is likely to be the people with
better stereo vision who can see how poor it is.

I'm inclined to agree that stereoscopic 3D as seen on a conventional 3D
TV is unrealistic, but despite the limitations of the format I still
find the effect impressive and enjoyable. I get more compelling and
"immersive" results with my 3D viewing system, which separates the left
and right image paths and gives some control over eye-ball convergence
and focusing.

On 31/07/2012 15:46, John Legon wrote:
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
John Legon wrote:

I suspect that many subscribers to this newsgroup are of a certain
age and have impaired vision in any case.

Of course some people may have poor vision. But others have excellent
vision and just don't think 3D television and film are very good.
They don't complain that they can't see the 3D effect: they complain
that it's unrealistic. In fact, it is likely to be the people with
better stereo vision who can see how poor it is.

I'm inclined to agree that stereoscopic 3D as seen on a conventional 3D
TV is unrealistic, but despite the limitations of the format I still
find the effect impressive and enjoyable. I get more compelling and
"immersive" results with my 3D viewing system, which separates the left
and right image paths and gives some control over eye-ball convergence
and focusing.

on my Samsung you can adjust the 3d separation.

Gary wrote:

on my Samsung you can adjust the 3d separation.

That's good. Given that my Sainsburys 42" Celcus 3DTV currently sells
for just &320 with four pairs of glasses it would be unreasonable to
expect all the bells and whistles, though it does have 4 HDMI, 2 SCART,
2 USB, component and composite video and VGA, and a media player that
will play my satellite box SD recordings "as is". HD recordings have to
be converted to MPEG2 or Xvid before they will play. The LG panel is
slightly lacking in the depth of the blacks when compared side by side
with my Samsung screen, especially off-axis, but it is also brighter.

In article , Pete
Shew writes
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.

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.

It would seem like that, but there is a lot more to it.

I have one of those Fuji-W3 3D cameras which, admittedly, I bought as a
gimmick after a colleague showed me some images from one last year. The
W3 has a 3x optical zoom but the lens separation is fixed at 75mm and
there is surprisingly little difference in effective depth going from
min to maximum zoom. In fact, at maximum telephoto it often appears
that the depth perception is greater. Applying further digital zoom to
an effective 17x increases the depth resolution even more, despite the
loss in spatial resolution at high digital zoom ratios.

Also, although the absolute depth resolution reduces at distance reduces
this is less obvious than it might seem because spatial resolution
reduces by the same amount - so it just "looks right".

I was really surprised with some shots I took looking across the Grand
Canyon earlier this year. Although the other side is on average 10
miles away, the 3D effect was really impressive. Of course the sides of
the far canyon walls range from 8 to 15 miles so there is a lot of depth
variation, but I was surprised how well it worked with only a 75mm
baseline. I was really glad I had taken it along as I only intended to
use it for relatively close images.

The W3 has a mode which allows for separate shots for the left and right
images, permitting much larger baseline separation to be achieved if
desired. However, when I have tried to use this I find the results much
less convincing than the default separation. I suspect this has to do
with getting the convergence right, which the W3 seems to continually
adjust depending on focus distance, although the L-R separation does
need some adjustment at extremely close distances in the macro region.

The great thing about the Fuji camera is that the display is a
lenticular LCD screen, so it shows 3D without any glasses at all. One
day, all 3D displays will be like that! ;-)
--
Kennedy

R. Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Pete
Shew writes
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.

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.

It would seem like that, but there is a lot more to it.

I have one of those Fuji-W3 3D cameras which, admittedly, I bought as a
gimmick after a colleague showed me some images from one last year. The
W3 has a 3x optical zoom but the lens separation is fixed at 75mm and
there is surprisingly little difference in effective depth going from
min to maximum zoom. In fact, at maximum telephoto it often appears
that the depth perception is greater. Applying further digital zoom to
an effective 17x increases the depth resolution even more, despite the
loss in spatial resolution at high digital zoom ratios.

Also, although the absolute depth resolution reduces at distance reduces
this is less obvious than it might seem because spatial resolution
reduces by the same amount - so it just "looks right".

I was really surprised with some shots I took looking across the Grand
Canyon earlier this year. Although the other side is on average 10
miles away, the 3D effect was really impressive. Of course the sides of
the far canyon walls range from 8 to 15 miles so there is a lot of depth
variation, but I was surprised how well it worked with only a 75mm
baseline. I was really glad I had taken it along as I only intended to
use it for relatively close images.

The difference in parallax from a 75 mm baseline to objects 10 and 15
miles away must be negligible, surely? Having said that, I've been
surprised by the 3D effect in scenic views and aerial photography.
Recent examples have been the aerial shots of London in the Olympic 3D
coverage. I've tended to assume that the baseline was somewhat larger
than the human eyeball spacing.

Here's an example taken from the Jedi 3D channel at 30 degrees west,
which I have converted from side-by-side to anaglyph 3D to illustrate
the variations in parallax. The colour fringing shows the amount of
parallax, which in this instance has evidently been adjusted to be zero
for the buildings in the middle distance, in front of the church. Hence
when viewed with red/cyan glasses, the foreground might be interpreted
as being in front of the TV screen.

http://www.john-legon.co.uk/temp/jediscene1.jpg

Perhaps someone with a working brain can estimate what the baseline is
roughly likely to be in this image?

--
John L