 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/8/2016 11:40 AM, scott wrote:
>>> If you've got a TV/monitor that works with passive glasses then give it
>>> a shot, you might get lucky. Often the TV will have a setting to
>>> override the 3D image format (side-by-side, interlaced etc) - you just
>>> need to match you POV images to the format the TV is expected,
>>> side-by-side is probably easiest to create.
>>
>> Yes, you need a TV/monitor that is 3D Ready. If it is a monitor you need
>> a GPU and drivers. You will also need a transmitter to sync the glasses.
>
> You are talking of active (shutter) glasses. Passive (polarising)
> glasses do not need a transmitter or any sync, the glasses are literally
> just two bits of polariser film stuck to some cardboard (hence very
> cheap). Obviously an "active" type TV will not work with passive
> glasses, or vice-versa.
>
Oh! I've not seen a 3D film at the cinema. I obviously havn't thought
about it much, Supplying shutter glasses would be a big layout as well.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <kua### [at] videotron ca> wrote:
> The 3D glasses used for colour movies normaly use polarised glasses,
> vertical polarisation on one side, horizontal for the other.
> The projectors also have coresponding polaroid filters.
There appear to be different technologies out there, but state of the art
actually is not horizontal and vertical polarization, but left-handed and
right-handed circular polarization -- the advantage being that you don't need to
keep your head exactly level.
This is often also combined with a slight red/cyan tint.
> 3D TV and monitors use alternating right-left images and you need
> special switching glasses to get the 3D effect. Special care must be
> given to the synchronisation between the screen and the glasses, usualy
> provided through a bluetoot signal.
There /are/ also displays out there that use polarization filters.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/7/2016 8:15 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 08.01.2016 um 01:01 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>> 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?
>
> Unless you have a display specifically designed for 3D -- in which case
> some 3D glasses should have come with it -- the glasses they give you at
> movie theaters are of no use to you. So either way you could just as
> well have been a good boy and returned them. (Even if your display is
> designed for 3D, the glasses might be incompatible with the system used.)
>
> The only glasses that work with traditional displays are those good old
> red-green or red-cyan glasses; if they gave you a set of /those/ at the
> theater you should have demanded to get your money back.
>
Crap. I guess I should return them then.
There are also chromatek glasses that work with regular PC monitors, but
they mess up the colors considerably.
http://chromatek.com/what-is-chromadepth/chromadepth-basic-explanation/
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> There appear to be different technologies out there, but state of the art
> actually is not horizontal and vertical polarization, but left-handed and
> right-handed circular polarization -- the advantage being that you don't need to
> keep your head exactly level.
>
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/8/2016 3:32 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
>>
>> There appear to be different technologies out there, but state of the art
>> actually is not horizontal and vertical polarization, but left-handed and
>> right-handed circular polarization -- the advantage being that you don't need to
>> keep your head exactly level.
>>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
I got a headache watching Avatar, but the new Star Wars was okay. Maybe
they used different technologies?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.01.2016 um 21:51 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>> 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.
Circular polarization isn't necessarily active either. Not sure if it's
even suited to make shutter glasses out of it. It's just another
polarization mode of light.
> I got a headache watching Avatar, but the new Star Wars was okay. Maybe
> they used different technologies?
It simply depends on the theater; both movies can be shown with either
technology.
When I watched Avatar, they already had the very same circular
polarization glasses with slight green/cyan tint.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.01.2016 um 22:21 schrieb clipka:
> When I watched Avatar, they already had the very same circular
> polarization glasses with slight green/cyan tint.
Just did a bit of browsing on the 'net, to find out that I'm entirely
mistaken; so here's the deal about professional theater 3D technology:
IMAX 3D:
--------
Steer clear of these theaters. They use linear polarization, i.e. the
thing that makes you not want to tilt your head.
Needs a special silver screen.
The glasses may be compatible with some passive (i.e. non-shutter) 3D TVs
Cinema 3D:
----------
Never seen or heard of these brands before myself, but should be ok.
They use circular polarization.
Needs a special silver screen.
The glasses may be compatible with some passive (i.e. non-shutter) 3D TVs.
Real-D:
-------
Never seen or heard of these brands before myself, and not sure what to
make of these theaters. They also use circular polarization, but employ
a shutter-like apparatus in front of the single projector, which I
suspect might be more prone to giving you a headache due to flickering.
Needs a special silver screen.
The glasses may be compatible with some passive (i.e. non-shutter) 3D TVs.
XpanD 3D:
---------
Never seen or heard of this brand before myself, and not sure what to
make of these theaters. They use shutter glasses, which I suspect might
be more prone to giving you a headache due to flickering.
Does not need a special silver screen.
Does need expensive glasses, which /are/ probably compatible with active
(i.e. shutter) 3D TVs.
Dolby 3D:
---------
This is what I was referring to, and they're a perfectly good choice,
but they do /not/ use circular polarization. Instead, amazingly it /is/
a variation on the old red/cyan theme. BUT: Rather than two broad colour
channels, one for each image channel, they use /six/ narrow colour
channels, assigned to the image channels in an alternating fashion; this
significantly reduces the apparent colour shift, as each eye gets its
own R, G and B channel, albeit with slightly different primary hues. The
residual shift is noticeable as a slight red/cyan tint of the glasses,
but is completely eliminated in the projection by digital colour correction.
Doesn't need a special silver screen.
Does need expensive glasses -- which are /not/ compatible with /any/
contemporary 3D TVs.
(Not to be confused with the display technology of same name that is
currently being developed for home use, and allegedly will not need any
glasses whatsoever.)
Given this broad range of 3D theater technology in current use, I'm not
/that/ surprised anymore to hear entirely different opinions about the
3D movie experience.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.01.2016 um 23:44 schrieb clipka:
> Cinema 3D:
Forget about this brand name; apparently it's not a 3D theater
technology, but a 3D TV/monitor technology.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/07/2016 06:51 PM, Alain wrote:
> Le 16-01-07 19:01, Mike Horvath a écrit :
>> 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
>
> The 3D glasses used for colour movies normaly use polarised glasses, vertical
polarisation on
> one side, horizontal for the other.
A point of trivia... I know for a fact that the original 3D movies did not use
horizontal/vertical polarization -- they were both at 45°, one was / and the other
was \. I
*assume* this is still the case but don't know.
Aside: My father used to be a projectionist, and over the years worked at several
different
theaters. So when I was young (a llooong time ago) I got to see movies for free
anyplace he
worked. He retired, then later passed away quite some time ago, so these days I have
to pay.
:-( So I rarely go to movies anymore (I'm cheap!) ;-)
-=- Larry -=-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
