 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 10.01.2016 um 01:53 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> On 1/7/2016 7:01 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> I just got done watching the new Star Wars movie in 3D. I kept the
>> glasses. How do I make images like that in POV-Ray?
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> I did a bit of browsing of Amazon looking for a nice stereoscope.
> However, they run between $40 - $100 which is too much.
Indeed, given that Google Cardboard and variations on the theme are
around $30 bucks. If 3D image viewing is all you want, and you happen to
own a smartphone, that might be an alternative to examine. (And if you
happen to not own a smartphone, it might be worth investigating whether
you can convert one of those into a classic stereoscope ;)
Also, if you even happen own a Samsung Galaxy Note 4 or 6, Samsung's
Gear VR might definitely be worth a look.
And of course Oculus are now accepting pre-orders, but their price is in
an entirely different ballpark B-) (unless you compare it to Samsung's
Gear VR /plus/ a brand-new Samsung Galaxy).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/9/2016 9:04 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 10.01.2016 um 01:53 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>> On 1/7/2016 7:01 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>> I just got done watching the new Star Wars movie in 3D. I kept the
>>> glasses. How do I make images like that in POV-Ray?
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> I did a bit of browsing of Amazon looking for a nice stereoscope.
>> However, they run between $40 - $100 which is too much.
>
> Indeed, given that Google Cardboard and variations on the theme are
> around $30 bucks. If 3D image viewing is all you want, and you happen to
> own a smartphone, that might be an alternative to examine. (And if you
> happen to not own a smartphone, it might be worth investigating whether
> you can convert one of those into a classic stereoscope ;)
>
> Also, if you even happen own a Samsung Galaxy Note 4 or 6, Samsung's
> Gear VR might definitely be worth a look.
>
>
> And of course Oculus are now accepting pre-orders, but their price is in
> an entirely different ballpark B-) (unless you compare it to Samsung's
> Gear VR /plus/ a brand-new Samsung Galaxy).
>
My smartphone has a low resolution 480 x 854 pixels (~221 ppi pixel
density), and it's a Windows Phone, so there are few apps for it.
http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_lumia_635-6254.php
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16-01-09 19:53, Mike Horvath a écrit :
> On 1/7/2016 7:01 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> I just got done watching the new Star Wars movie in 3D. I kept the
>> glasses. How do I make images like that in POV-Ray?
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> I did a bit of browsing of Amazon looking for a nice stereoscope.
> However, they run between $40 - $100 which is too much.
>
>
> Mike
In several cases, you don't realy need a stereoscope.
If the images are side by side, and suficiently small, then parallel
viewing can work nicely. You look at the images as if they where farther
away than they are.
Often, when the side by side images are larger, you need to use the
crosswed eyes viewing method where you cross your eyes as if the images
where much closer than they actualy are.
Cost: Free.
With some practice, it won't cause eye fatigue. I can use bot parallel
and crossed view for hours.
If the images are supposed to be viewed with polaroid filters, you can
repurpose old polaroid sun glasses by removing the glasses and mounting
them in a cardboard frame at the correct angles.
Obviously, if you need shutter glasses, then, you just can't make a home
made version and need to buy some that are compatible with your equipment.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I was in Las Vegas USA many years ago, and watched a 'special venue' 3D movie
> there on a large domed screen. (Some form of IMAX, probably.) I *think* the 3D
> glasses I wore were shutter glasses of some sort (but I could be wrong; I don't
> remember exactly.) The 3D effect was flawless-- and I was amazed that I could
> turn at any angle to look at the imagery, even directly overhead. I assume the
> 3D glasses were circularly-polarized-- my first experience with that technology.
>
> But when I went to see AVATAR in 3D-Imax at my local big cinema, I remember
> tilting my head to see what would happen-- and instead saw two overlapped images
> in each eye, with no 3D :-( The glasses they gave out (on loan!) were simple
> polarizers, nothing active. So no circular polarization there, AKAIK.
Both circular and linear polarised systems are passive, the filters in
both eyes are simple polariser sheets that are very cheap, small and
require no power source or electronics. The display equipment though
needs to be more complex as it needs to transmit two images with two
different polarisations. Normal TVs and monitors cannot do this.
Active, or shutter, as the name implies, works by quickly blacking out
one eye, then the other, in sync with each frame being shown. This
allows it to work with a normal TV or monitor (plus a device to
sync/transmit to the glasses). Note that these systems probably do
"black out" each eye using effectively a 1-pixel LCD in each eye (and
hence work due to polarisation), but they don't rely on any special
polarisation from the display device itself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> Active, or shutter, as the name implies, works by quickly blacking out
> one eye, then the other, in sync with each frame being shown. This
> allows it to work with a normal TV or monitor (plus a device to
> sync/transmit to the glasses). Note that these systems probably do
> "black out" each eye using effectively a 1-pixel LCD in each eye (and
> hence work due to polarisation), but they don't rely on any special
> polarisation from the display device itself.
I suspect the shutter glasses' orientation may matter though: As you say, there
is polarization involved in LCD: Essentially it is a sandwich of two
polarization filters, with a medium in between that can rotate the polarization
of the light in a controlled manner.
Thus, for shutter glasses to work with an LCD, the polarization orientation of
the glasses' sandwich filters needs to sufficiently match that of the display's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/7/2016 7:37 PM, Norbert Kern wrote:
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> I just got done watching the new Star Wars movie in 3D. I kept the
>> glasses. How do I make images like that in POV-Ray?
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> It seems, tonight I've all the answers...
>
> I use StereoPhotoMaker (free) to get *.jps files out of two left/right images (
> http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/stphmkr/index.html ).
>
> My LG TV-set understands this formate. The original images have to be squeezed
> first (look at binaries.images for an example).
>
> Norbert
>
>
>
>
>
I ordered one of these and should get it later this week.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004EDB1S4?keywords=stereoscope&qid=1452568122&ref_=sr_1_90&sr=8-90
Are there tutorials on how set up POV-Ray to make such images? I'm not
using the look_at keyword in my camera statement. I am using up, right,
and direction instead. How can I compensate for this?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/11/2016 10:11 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> I ordered one of these and should get it later this week.
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004EDB1S4?keywords=stereoscope&qid=1452568122&ref_=sr_1_90&sr=8-90
>
>
> Are there tutorials on how set up POV-Ray to make such images? I'm not
> using the look_at keyword in my camera statement. I am using up, right,
> and direction instead. How can I compensate for this?
>
>
> Mike
Also, is there a particular angle of view I should be aiming for?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 1/11/2016 10:11 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> > I ordered one of these and should get it later this week.
> >
> >
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004EDB1S4?keywords=stereoscope&qid=1452568122&ref_=sr_1_90&sr=8-90
> >
> >
> > Are there tutorials on how set up POV-Ray to make such images? I'm not
> > using the look_at keyword in my camera statement. I am using up, right,
> > and direction instead. How can I compensate for this?
By /adding/ a "look_at" statement? ;)
For starters you might get away ok without look_at.
What you really need to do is translate the camera a bit to the left (for the
left eye) or the right (for the right eye) -- which is actually a deal easier if
you don't use look_at, because with that statement you'd have to compute your
effective left/right axis "manually".
> > Mike
>
> Also, is there a particular angle of view I should be aiming for?
That depends on the (apparent) angle at which the image will be visible using
that contraption.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/12/2016 2:17 PM, clipka wrote:
> By /adding/ a "look_at" statement? ;)
>
> For starters you might get away ok without look_at.
>
> What you really need to do is translate the camera a bit to the left (for the
> left eye) or the right (for the right eye) -- which is actually a deal easier if
> you don't use look_at, because with that statement you'd have to compute your
> effective left/right axis "manually".
Okay, but I was thinking that rotating by a small amount would be
better. Otherwise the point of interest gets translated too. Should I
use real-world measurements for the distance between the "eyes"?
>>
>> Also, is there a particular angle of view I should be aiming for?
>
> That depends on the (apparent) angle at which the image will be visible using
> that contraption.
>
>
I don't understand what you mean. By angle of view I mean the camera
angle. Is there some natural angle that is most like human vision?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/12/2016 7:52 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 1/12/2016 2:17 PM, clipka wrote:
>> By /adding/ a "look_at" statement? ;)
>>
>> For starters you might get away ok without look_at.
>>
>> What you really need to do is translate the camera a bit to the left
>> (for the
>> left eye) or the right (for the right eye) -- which is actually a deal
>> easier if
>> you don't use look_at, because with that statement you'd have to
>> compute your
>> effective left/right axis "manually".
>
> Okay, but I was thinking that rotating by a small amount would be
> better. Otherwise the point of interest gets translated too. Should I
> use real-world measurements for the distance between the "eyes"?
>
I don't completly agree with Clipka. You can use the look_at to set the
convergance. That is how you place objects in front or behind the
screen. So with the look_at set you just translate the camera left and
right. As for the distance to use for your baseline. It should be the
distance between your eyes in relation to the scale of your scene.
A simple explanation at the beginning of this article.
http://www.sky.com/shop/__PDF/3D/Basic_Principles_of_Stereoscopic_3D_v1.pdf
>>>
>>> Also, is there a particular angle of view I should be aiming for?
>>
>> That depends on the (apparent) angle at which the image will be
>> visible using
>> that contraption.
>>
>>
>
> I don't understand what you mean. By angle of view I mean the camera
> angle. Is there some natural angle that is most like human vision?
>
Without getting arty ;) use between 40° and 60° that is roughly a 50mm lens.
How are you going to drive your "Cardboard", what software?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
