Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The prospects for stereoscopic porn.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The prospects for stereoscopic porn.

    Ask AW members what’s on their stereo, and they will think you are asking about their favorite background music. That may change. There might be a day when the same members asked the same question will think you are asking what they are looking at on their stereoscopic monitors.

    The questions I set out to answer are:
    1. What are the prospects for stereo porn?
    2. What is going on with stereo consumer electronics?
    3. What would a comparison shopper want to buy?
    After looking into it for a while, the answers are surprising. (Or appalling, depending on your point of view.)

    I have a long-time interest in stereo porn. I also write computer graphics in OpenGL as a hobby, and have a background in systems engineering. My budget for purchase of toys is typical of consumers in general. With that combination of interests and limitations, I am likely to be among the first of us to do comparison shopping, and to buy stereo gear that others of us would want to know about. I’d like to share my joys and commiserations, and hear from other members active or interested in the same subject.


    The lure of stereo

    My first experience with stereoscopic photography came from my grandparents. They had an old-fashioned stereoscope. The thing is an antique, but I was amazed by the photo realism of stereo. Some of my amazement can be attributed to impressionable youth, but the impression never left me.

    Later, I owned a ViewMaster™. The outdoor photos were beautiful. Once in a while, the reels would include a flat photo along with the stereo ones, just to make a point about the difference between flat and stereo. I didn’t need to be convinced. The difference is dramatic.

    Some of my friends have never tried a ViewMaster™ or watched a stereoscopic IMAX film. I tell them to try a simple experiment to understand the difference between stereo and flat. I have them close one eye, and spend a couple minutes looking around their home or office with one eye closed. Then I have them open both eyes. The difference is dramatic. We are accustomed to perceiving depth by the slightly different views at left and right eyes, and a major aspect of perception is lost without it.

    The difference between stereo and flat is equally as dramatic for porn. Collapsing the image of a very three-dimensional (3D) girl onto a flat 2D photo takes a heavy toll on photo realism. Cleavages become lines. Shapes are lost. We have to use other clues to perceive depth, like the curve of a shadow, or gradations in texture. The photos can be excellent, but by being flat, they can never have the realism of being where the camera was, and seeing with both eyes.

    I have had little luck in finding stereo porn. I found a hand-held stereo porn viewer once. It worked by pulling a strip of film through it. It was nice, but there were only three or four film strips available for purchase with it. There have not been many nude girls on ViewMaster™ reels, though I can’t understand why not. IMAX isn’t showing stereo porn.


    Consumers

    Porn consumers have, in the past, demonstrated very definite interest in 3D stereoscopic content. Interest periodically surges, and then fades away. The last surge of interest was in the 1950s. There are 1950s stereo pinups [1] for sale at Amazon, if anyone is collecting them. Most of the stereo cameras available today are refurbished ones from the 1950s. [2]

    Consumer interest has surged in the past, and it will again. Styles go out, but they come back. Also, some interest has remained all along. One AVN (Adult Video News) writer has been documenting the adult industry in 3D for 8 years. [3]

    I think that the reason interest in stereo periodically fades is that there have been technical limitations and other problems that detract from the stereoscopic experience.
    1. Viewing in 3D has required special techniques or equipment, and there has been very little content generated to be compatible with it.
    2. The methods used to create 3D have often detracted from other aspects of photographic quality. For example, one method of separating right/left views is to show one side in red and one side in blue. The method does produce stereo, but the colors are awful. After a while, one would prefer flat photos in natural colors.
    3. Viewing in 3D has required equipment or methods that are uncomfortable, confusing, or unsatisfactory to the user. The most recent porn that I have seen in stereo requires viewing two panes by crossing eyes. The method works, but it is uncomfortable, and the images are tiny.
    Basically, stereo has been more trouble than it is worth. But if the problems were eliminated through advances in consumer electronics, we could have a resurgence of interest in stereo that becomes permanent.

    Designers of consumer electronics would have to give us true, full stereo, with the drawbacks eliminated. I could allow for wearing special glasses, but the stereo 3D equipment has to be no more complicated to operate, and not much more expensive, than flat 2D equipment. Images presented in 3D have to be as good as those available in 2D, with the added benefit of right/left view separation.

    Makers of PC monitors and eyewear seem to be headed for this very goal.


    Stereo monitors

    A simple line of reasoning would say that the porn industry is stuck in flat, and can’t change. There is a three-way jam preventing change:
    1. Consumers cannot begin viewing stereo porn, because there are no stereo photos for them to look at, and no equipment to view stereo photos with.
    2. Photographers cannot begin shooting and selling stereo porn, because the only available stereo cameras are 1950s vintage, [2] and because porn consumers couldn’t view stereo photos if they had them.
    3. Makers of stereo cameras and stereo monitors cannot sell to a market of stereo porn lovers, because the market does not exist.
    There are three parties, (consumers, photographers, equipment suppliers,) each of which are unable to move until the other two move first. Under those assumptions, there can be no motion. The industry is permanently stuck in flat.

    Fortunately, there is a flaw in this line of reasoning. It neglects the presence of other (non porn) users for stereo equipment. Stereo monitor makers cannot sell to a porn market that doesn’t exist yet, but that hasn’t stopped them. They began by selling stereo monitors to high-end scientific, engineering, and medical users. Building on that base, they have brought the price down sufficiently to appeal to high-end gamers. From there, they are continuing to bring the price down to appeal to ordinary consumers.

    An example of high-end stereo equipment for scientific, engineering and medical applications is the Sharp Actius AL3DU laptop shown in the photo. [4] Its current price is around $2800 USD. [5] That’s pricy for me, but the laptop makes stereo viewing easy. I could be convinced on a show-room floor that the thing would give me stereo after taking it home, with little more setup time than an ordinary laptop. The laptop achieves stereo by directing left and right views to different points in front of the monitor. To view stereo, the user has to position his or her head in the right place in front of the screen. That’s cumbersome, but I could be satisfied with it. The screen will switch to 2D for viewing spread sheets and word processors, requiring only a mouse click.

    img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.vrealities.com/al1.jpg

    Bringing the price of stereo down from $2800 to the consumer range, the ICUITI DV920 stereo eyewear shown in the photo [6] sells for about $550 USD. It works by miniaturizing the LCD monitor, and placing two of them directly into eyewear. Don’t ask me how they get the thing to focus at that range. Somehow they do. Not having tried the eyewear myself, I can’t tell whether the resolution is too low (640x480x2 pixels), or the image is too small. In any case, they have a real stereo product. It won a major 2005 & 2006 consumer electronics show award. [6]

    img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.vrealities.com/v920.jpg

    Another eyewear option is the I-Glasses™ PC 3D. It sells around $1150 USD. [7] That is more expensive than the DV920, but the specifications are better. I could be tempted to purchase a pair.

    img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/atrendyhome_1898_4165377

    There are many other makers of stereo gadgets. Stereo3d.com has a comparison chart listing 120 makes and models of shutter glasses alone. [8] Shutter glasses work in conjunction with a large CRT desktop monitor. The monitor alternates between right and left views, and the glasses alternate between clear and opaque to control which eye sees which view. Shutter glasses are a good consumer option, (gamers use them,) but the setups suffer from ghost images, and the CRT monitors have to have an unusually high refresh rate.

    I prefer an eyewear approach, (a head-mounted display like the ICUITI DV920,) over a full-sized LCD monitor or a CRT with shutter glasses. Having eyewear is like having a ViewMaster™ strapped to one’s face; It eliminates swiveling. With a full-sized CRT or laptop screen, slight head motion will produce a swiveling effect; An arrow pointed out from the screen to the viewer will appear to swivel to remain pointed at the viewer as the viewer moves. Our natural expectation is that we could get around to look at the arrow from the side, but it swivels instead. A swiveling arrow isn’t bad, but a swiveling boob is positively irritating. Having a video window strapped to my face isn’t natural either, but it would do what I’m expecting it to do while I scoot around in my chair to stay comfortable.

    The eyewear approach is also less restrictive; Instead of having to sit up straight and keep my head still and in just the right position in front of a screen, I can stretch out and move to stay comfortable. There are also hints in the sales literature that, since the view is “in the privacy of your own eyes”, there are more places where you can view your favorite content. One advertised use for eyewear is to distract dental patients while they are having their teeth worked on.

    From the sales literature, the ICUITI DV920 eyewear is apparently targeted for consumers who want to watch stereo DVD movies. [6] That tells me that ICUITI is willing to risk dying on the bleeding edge of technology in order for a chance to strike it big; There aren’t many DVD movies in stereo. ICUITI bundles five stereo DVD movies with sales of its eyewear. ICUITI financed product development for a product that has little immediate application. The investors apparently perceive a huge potential market, and they are willing to pay the price to prepare for it before it exists.

    This is a key point. It is not porn photographers, and not porn consumers who will take the financial risks associated with breaking down the barriers to stereo. It is makers of consumer electronics who will take the big leap.

    So, what else is going on behind the scenes that would explain ICUITI’s gamble? One clue might be from a consortium of Japanese companies that formed three years ago to work on stereo displays. The consortium includes five major companies (Sony, Sanyo, Sharp, NTT and Itochu) and 60 other members. Some among them believe that the next generation of displays for computers, TVs, cell phones, advertising, and electronic books will be in stereo. The consortium estimates the 3D market in Japan has the potential to reach annual sales of about $25.4 billion by 2008. [16]

    The adult entertainment industry will have plenty of advanced warning that 3D is coming. The company DDD, “Bringing 3D to Mainstream” [17] debuted 3D equipment at the Adult Entertainment Expo, last January in Las Vegas. [18] I am not enamored of their wrinkle on the technology, but if nothing else, some porn producers saw 3D demonstrations for the first time. The porn industry is usually among the first to grab a new technology and push it forward. This time it seems to be lagging. That could change when consumer 3D viewing devices drop in price.


    Gamers

    Gamers have discovered stereo. Here is what one of them wrote:
    You never saw anything like this
    I'm into stereo for quite a long time but still now and then comes a game that makes me say WOW when I start playing it and continue saying WOW till I finish the game plus some freely downloadable missions. Such a game is Age of Mythology by Ensemble Studios who are also the makers of Age of Empires I and II. While the previous games were in isometric 2D, the new one is in full and glorious 3D. … Every little detail in the game is a 3d object - from the huge buildings to the smallest arrows your archers will shoot at the mighty beasts u fight against. What's more, in this game you really get to see objects come out of the screen - buildings and units come as far as 30cm [12 inches] out of the screen (I swear). ... I loved the game and the stereo effect so much that I've put 11megs of screenshots online. Modem users - trust me, it's worth the download time. Some minor glitches do exist such as 2d objects for fire or snow... but the stereo effect is still the best I ever saw... [9]

    “buildings and units come as far as 30cm [12 inches] out of the screen (I swear)”

    Now translate that to porn. We are going to see a close-up of a model’s breast coming as far as 30 cm out of the screen. We’re going to see models that just float out from the screen, and faces close enough to kiss. Or, that’s my hope.

    The images that gamers see are generated by OpenGL software, and by graphics hardware in their PCs and Macs. The images are not produced by cameras. For porn purpose we need live girls and cameras.


    Stereo cameras

    The situation regarding stereo cameras has been dismal, up until now. Articles that I could find on the Internet said that, unless one is willing to build his or her own camera, the only available stereo cameras are refurbished ones from the 1950s. [2] I can’t imagine Abby handling that impressive looking Canon gear, and then winding 35mm film in a purse-sized camera twice as old as she is. Fortunately, the articles are now out of date.

    Sony has just released a state-of-the art, digital camera suitable for stereo photography, shown below. [10] The Sony D2 works by combining two standard Sony DSC 828 Cameras. The setup costs around $5000 USD, as of the time of this post. (The two cameras cost about $1400 each, and the housing with the linkage between cameras costs another $1400.) The setup will take still photos at 8x2 megapixel resolution. It has a burst mode. The setup will also take movies at 30 fps, with 640x480x2 resolution, requiring an additional drive for storing the information. [11]


    img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.stereoscopy.com/3d-concepts/d1c.gif


    Cameras have limitations that game graphics do not. Game software draws objects throughout the scene as being in focus, whereas, cameras have depth of focus limitations. The best stereo effects are at close range, where the DOF limitations are most noticeable. There are other stereo camera limitations, such as how best to frame a subject. [19] Stylistically, stereo is likely going to be distinct enough from flat that one would not want to mix stereo and flat formats, but rather, find methods that highlight separately the advantages of each.


    Stereo photographers

    There is a considerable amount of general interest in stereo among photographers. The Victorian 3D Society in Melbourne is a special interest group for active stereo photographers. [12] There is the Sydney Stereo Camera Club. [13] The International Stereoscopic Union is headquartered in New Zealand. [14] The Stereoscopic Society of America has about 150 active stereo photographers. [15]

    Now would be an exciting time to belong to one of those clubs. The members (1) have an understanding of stereo principles that are timeless, and (2) are just now seeing the introduction of the first commercial, state-of-the art cameras since the 1950s. If Abby owned a Sony D2, the club members in Melbourne might trade everything they know about stereo in exchange for a chance to get their hands on it.


    Porn sites

    If consumers were to revolt against flat, many porn sites would have a serious problem; Their archives are in flat. They have invested heavily in accumulating large archives, and they would see their archives lose appeal. Contrary to claims by some, flat photos cannot be upgraded to stereo, because the separate right and left views were never recorded. Effectively, the sites would see their entire archives lost to obsolescence. The sites could re-tool with stereo cameras, and begin generating stereo content, but that is a long, time-consuming process. It takes time to schedule new shoots with new models. The initial amount of stereo content available for posting would be meager. The sites would simultaneously face a scramble to adapt to the new technology, and a protracted loss of revenue that they expected from their old archives. The ones still amortizing investment in their old archives could very well go out of business.

    Meanwhile, upstart sites would be promoting themselves as the shiny, new, 3D wave of the future. With established sites having lost their archives, the playing field is leveled. Essentially, all sites become new and small. The would-be upstart sites that can’t compete today would be granted an opening by the changing times.

    A defensive strategy for large, established sites, were they to foresee the changes, would be to quietly add stereo as a component to regular shoots, long before the changes occur. While models are available for current shoots, take both flat and stereo photos. Put the stereo ones into reserve. The strategy means not having to schedule new shoots at a later time, just to get some stereo. Then, when the industry is forced to change, unveil a surprise archive already in stereo. Also, sell photos to other sites that will pay a premium to cover their downtime.

    A word about timing. It is possible to be very right about a prediction, and be way off on its timing. Stereo has been around since the mid 1800s. [20] That list of 120 makes and models of shutter glasses did not appear over the course of a year. Two decades would be more like it, with most activity in the last decade. Once a consumer switch to stereo catches fire, it could move rapidly. But there is time to watch developments, experiment, and move carefully in getting ready for it.


    Comparison shopping

    I’ve just begun comparing stereo monitors and eyewear to purchase. This will be a work in progress, for a while. My immediate use of the gear will be for writing stereo graphics software, and for viewing general stereoscopic content on the web.


    Conclusion
    1. Consumers have periodically demonstrated a strong interest in stereo porn. The last surge of interest was in the 1950s.
    2. Watch for performance and price breakthroughs in consumer electronics, and in professional cameras. That is where movement toward stereo will begin. Porn consumers and photographers will wait for developments and react when they occur, whereas, equipment designers will take the big leap.
    3. Equipment designers might give us something that has never existed before – a full stereoscopic experience, at affordable prices, without the prior technical drawbacks.
    4. If really good stereo cameras and electronics reach the porn community, interest in stereo porn is going to surge again. Stereo is currently out of style, but styles return.
    5. With the technical drawbacks of stereo removed, interest in stereo porn will not only surge, but stick. Stereo provides a dramatic improvement in photo realism, and if the drawbacks are removed, we won’t go back to flat.
    6. The porn industry change to stereo will produce winners and losers among sites.
    7. I’ve just started comparison shopping for stereo viewing gear to buy. If any of you are already into it, please post!

    [1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031...lance&n=283155
    [2] http://www.stereoscopy.com/isu/start.html
    [3] http://www.cascade3d.org/newsletters/CSC200402.pdf page 6
    [4] http://www.vrealities.com/sharpal3du.html
    [5] http://www.costcentral.com/proddetai...94143/froogle/
    [6] http://www.vrealities.com/dv920.html
    [7] http://www.atrendyhome.com/ipc3d10co.html
    [8] http://www.stereo3d.com/3dhome.htm
    [9] http://www.stereovision.net
    [10] http://www.stereoscopy.com/3d-concepts/cameradig.html
    [11] http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/
    [12] http://home.vicnet.net.au/~vic3d/
    [13] http://www.oz3d.info/index.htm
    [14] http://www.stereoscopy.com/isu/
    [15] http://www.stereoscopy.com/clubs/index.html
    [16] http://www.reed-electronics.com/elec...=0&rme=0&cfd=1
    [17] http://www.ddd.com/
    [18] http://www.ddd.com/about/Press%20Rel...60113-AEE.html
    [19] http://home.vicnet.net.au/~vic3d/beginner.html
    [20] http://www.3dphoto.net/index.html


    #2
    Personally, I've never been interested in stereoscopic imagery.

    Comment


      #3
      Min, thanks for the comprehensive info. I don;t really get what's special about the Sony cam setup - we could do that with two Canon 1Dmk2n's with no problem, right?

      a

      Comment


        #4
        Wow Minotaur, that was an incredibly comprehensive look at stereo imagery.

        I love stereo pictures. I can look at them without any special viewer and see the depth. I got hooked after I saw a few bigger ones. Yes, I had a ViewMaster and loved it.

        I made a parallelgram adapter for my camera (digital Kodak dc4800 since sold) and made my own stereo pictures. The results were quite impressive I thought. A recent issue of Nuts & Volts talks about making your own stereo camera with the synchronizing done with an infrared trigger.

        Abby, I think the problem with just taking 2 cameras is getting them placed with the right overlap and then synching them so that they both fire at exactly the same time. I did static subjects so the timing issue was not a big problem, but wind sometime blew the flowers into different positions between the two exposures. $5k is a lot for a camera even if it really is 2 cameras.

        Poloroid made a camera with 2 lenses for taking passport pictures. I remember looking at the sheet as it came out of the camera and merging the two images. It was stunning looking at the difference with the depth.

        The Mayo Clinic used to (still does?) take Xrays in stereo and the doctors would see a left and right image and merge them just by looking. It takes some practice, but I can do it.

        Do you like the "Magic Eyes" pictures?

        'nuf for now.

        Big Stereo

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by BigSpud
          Abby, I think the problem with just taking 2 cameras is getting them placed with the right overlap and then synching them so that they both fire at exactly the same time.
          I disagree.

          Synching two cameras is easy (well, the cameras we use, anyway). The correct spacing and overlap needs to be worked out, but it's not that hard, then you make a simple bracket from steel plate that the cameras are connected to to ensure spacing remains constant. I guess you'd need to used fixed glass, too, not zooms, but that's not a big deal...

          a

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by minotaur
            Sony has just released a state-of-the art, digital camera suitable for stereo photography, shown below. The Sony D2 works by combining two standard Sony DSC 828 Cameras. The setup costs around $5000 USD, as of the time of this post. (The two cameras cost about $1400 each, and the housing with the linkage between cameras costs another $1400.)
            Great article. Major problem with the price of the DSC-828 camera. I think you looked at the price wrong, as you can get TWO of the cameras for $1400. I know, I have one. I got mine when it street sold for under $1k. It now streets for around $700USD (I just looked at one place and it was $696).

            I'd love to see 3D images and have no problem having two images side-by-side and turning them into one.

            And yes, I can instantly make those strange interference pattern 3D images come to life in moments, where others I know can't get them to work at all.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Abby
              Min, thanks for the comprehensive info.
              You're welcome.

              Originally posted by Abby
              I don't really get what's special about the Sony cam setup - we could do that with two Canon 1Dmk2n's with no problem, right?

              Synching two cameras is easy (well, the cameras we use, anyway). The correct spacing and overlap needs to be worked out, but it's not that hard, then you make a simple bracket from steel plate that the cameras are connected to to ensure spacing remains constant. I guess you'd need to used fixed glass, too, not zooms, but that's not a big deal...
              There are people who build their own stereo cameras, just about the way you suggest. There are instructions on the net for how to do it. The correct spacing is around 64 mm, to match average human eye spacing. The D2 is synched to a tolerance of 0.4 msec, but the timing tolerance can probably be relaxed. Alignments are critical to stereo, but digital records can be aligned in software.

              If synching two of your cameras is easy, and you have the cameras, and can easily make brackets, then it sounds like you have a project. I have a couple reservations. (1) A middle-performance camera setup that works is better than a top-performance setup that is a pain. When the first consumers start looking at stereo porn, they will be forgiving of a moderate drop in quality relative to flat, especially since their own monitors will limit the viewing quality. (2) The cameras themselves are interesting enough to build, but what is more interesting to me is the art form that this opens up. What is it that makes a great work in this medium, and how would you put your unique stamp on it?

              What is significant (to me) about the Sony D2 is that it is the first commercially produced stereo camera since the 1950s, that I am aware of. That makes it the first of what may be a new generation of stereo cameras, and a lot of new interest in stereo photography. Most photographers would be stopped by the engineering task of synchronizing and aligning two cameras, and most wouldn’t like 1950’s cameras either, discouraging a lot of would be stereo photographers from becoming active in it.

              min

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by MrVideo
                Great article. Major problem with the price of the DSC-828 camera. I think you looked at the price wrong, as you can get TWO of the cameras for $1400. I know, I have one. I got mine when it street sold for under $1k. It now streets for around $700USD (I just looked at one place and it was $696).
                You’re right! Amazon and a few other places are selling it for around $700. That brings the price of the overall D2 setup down to around $3000, plus the cost of a recorder if the setup will be used to make movies.

                Originally posted by MrVideo
                And yes, I can instantly make those strange interference pattern 3D images come to life in moments, where others I know can't get them to work at all.
                Now THERE’S an idea to make money. Figure out a way to show naked girls in those interference patterns! They’d be covered in little geometric splotches, but that would add to the appeal.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Vid Dude
                  Personally, I've never been interested in stereoscopic imagery.
                  Me neither. Because I'm nearly blind on the left eye, I have no 3D view.
                  It's cheaper, I don't have to buy 2 cameras.

                  Lxm

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I'm interested in seeing a stereo shoot. Stereo video would PARTICULARLY rock.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Totally Flat !

                      That's funny ... I thought everyone was converting to Flat Screens ?
                      LCD, Plasma, etc.


                      TowelBoy
                      Last edited by TowelBoy; 23 June 2006, 11:22 AM.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I maintain that Stereoscopic 3D is a gimmick. It doesn't really have any true added value.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Sounds like a paradoxon: 3D picture on a flat screen.

                          Lxm

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I'd agree with the gimmick sentiment. It's just pure novelty, and doesn't add much to the real value of the content.

                            Having said that, I have seen some of the stereoscopic IMAX flicks (Close Encounters of the Third Dimension, Cyberspace 3D), which are a nice feast for the eyes, but not much more.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I think the biggest problem will be with the equipment one must use to view it. Where do you buy stereoscopic glasses? What type should I buy? Will the purchase plus shipping cost more or less than a month of AW.com?
                              My sister's husband is an optometrist interested in stereoscopic photography, and at one point made us some 3D ViewMaster disks of me playing with my son. Very interesting, crisp, and clear. But you look at them once or twice, and then...
                              I tend to agree that it's a gimmick.

                              Then again, in 1990 many people were dismissing the internet as a gimmick. So who knows, maybe a little trailblazing is in order.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                There are certain models whose, uhm, three-dimensionality would give me two black eyes.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Have you been checking out male models, Arty?

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by arsby
                                    ...Then again, in 1990 many people were dismissing the internet as a gimmick. So who knows, maybe a little trailblazing is in order.
                                    so were personal computers, PDAs and cell phones....

                                    maybe not all of them in that order in that year, but at some point in time......

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by BigSpud
                                      Wow Minotaur, that was an incredibly comprehensive look at stereo imagery.
                                      Thanks.

                                      I’m still at it, more into comparison shopping now for stereo monitors and head-mounted displays. This turned up in a search last night, the Sharp LL-151-3D. It’s a stereo LCD monitor costing around $470. [1] It was rated “very good” by PC Magazine. [1] There is another review at PC World [2].
                                      img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/8/0,1425,i=87639,00.jpg

                                      [1] http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1647634,00.asp
                                      [2] http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117303,00.asp


                                      Originally posted by BigSpud
                                      Do you like the "Magic Eyes" pictures?
                                      Yes. How about a stereogram similar to looking down on a flat, sandy beach, with a girl buried in the sand and partly exposed. It would be similar to this one, but in place of the bump, substitute something with a pretty grin.

                                      img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www2.vo.lu/homepages/phahn/rds/vaserely.jpg


                                      Originally posted by BigSpud
                                      I made a parallelogram adapter for my camera (digital Kodak dc4800 since sold) and made my own stereo pictures. The results were quite impressive I thought. A recent issue of Nuts & Volts talks about making your own stereo camera with the synchronizing done with an infrared trigger.
                                      You are the only one I know who has built a stereo camera, and experimented with it. Congratulations that your setup worked. You are likely the first, and one of the most active AW members in the area of stereo.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by minotaur
                                        Thanks.

                                        I’m still at it, more into comparison shopping now for stereo monitors and head-mounted displays. This turned up in a search last night, the Sharp LL-151-3D. It’s a stereo LCD monitor costing around $470. [1] It was rated “very good” by PC Magazine. [1] There is another review at PC World [2].
                                        img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/8/0,1425,i=87639,00.jpg

                                        [1] http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1647634,00.asp
                                        [2] http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117303,00.asp
                                        Cool idea. I have not looked into this at all so Imay sound a little uninformed.

                                        The "stereo" images they are talking about are specially encoded images to line up the left and right pixels so the monitor can separate them? I am used to just putting up 2 pictures and viewing one with the left eye and one with the right. It sounds like the pixels are interlaced in the image.
                                        Originally posted by minotaur


                                        Yes. How about a stereogram similar to looking down on a flat, sandy beach, with a girl buried in the sand and partly exposed. It would be similar to this one, but in place of the bump, substitute something with a pretty grin.

                                        img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www2.vo.lu/homepages/phahn/rds/vaserely.jpg
                                        Cool. Easy to imagine. Pornography could be encoded in these images and noone would ever know it unless they knew the "secret"
                                        Originally posted by minotaur

                                        You are the only one I know who has built a stereo camera, and experimented with it. Congratulations that your setup worked. You are likely the first, and one of the most active AW members in the area of stereo.
                                        I really, really liked the effect. I have just been so busy lately that I haven't done more with it. I want to do closeup 3D but my first attempt wasn't too great. I suspect the angle wasn't quite correct. I hope I have more time to play with this now. Thanks for the info. Keep me (and the rest of us at AW) posted.

                                        BigStereo

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Originally posted by BigSpud
                                          The "stereo" images they are talking about are specially encoded images to line up the left and right pixels so the monitor can separate them? I am used to just putting up 2 pictures and viewing one with the left eye and one with the right. It sounds like the pixels are interlaced in the image.
                                          BigStereo
                                          The views are interlaced, with right- and left-eye views on alternating pixel columns. An additional LCD panel angles the light from the back, so that the light from alternating columns goes to the intended eye. In 2D mode, the back LCD panel shuts off, and both eyes see all the pixels. It’s drawback is that there are restrictive zones in front of the monitor where viewers have to keep their eyes in order to see stereo. But within those zones, there is true stereo, from an apparent single pane, and without glasses. The zones repeat, so that up to 5 people can see stereo at the same time on the same monitor.

                                          [1] http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117303,00.asp

                                          Comment

                                          Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter

                                           
                                          Sign up for the abby newsletter. Don't worry, we'll NEVER share your email address with anyone.
                                          Working...
                                          X