This is a follow up to an image I submitted to an early TC-RTC in 2007. 
It got a little bit of criticism because I reused some models from a 
previous animation. So I made a rude version then started this one. The 
same scene after hours when the characters were relaxing.  Using 
red/cyan glasses is much more convenient than making it for shutter 
glasses.

BTW It was Gail Shaw who started this train of thought.

Here is the original:
http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/portfolio/Stephen/86/index.html

There are a couple of obvious faults but comments welcome.

This version is made with two parallel cameras (Thanks StephenS). I 
still don't understand why using toed in cameras is not better. But 
heigh hoe it's not.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'a_grpnew01as_.png' (1507 KB)

Preview of image 'a_grpnew01as_.png'

I remember that scene now and this one is a somewhat unexpected follow 
up on it. It made me grin: going from high drama to cosy chatting. But 
what do you expect? Theatre.

Now, how about King Lear, hm?

About faults: here too there is that trouble with the focussing of the 
foreground like in StephenS's scene.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

...
> I still don't understand why using toed in cameras is not better.
...

Try http://paulbourke.net/stereographics/stereorender/

I re-found this recently.

Stephen S

Post a reply to this message

On 6/11/2016 12:20 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I remember that scene now and this one is a somewhat unexpected follow
> up on it. It made me grin: going from high drama to cosy chatting. But
> what do you expect? Theatre.
>
> Now, how about King Lear, hm?
>

Shalt thou play the king to my fool on yon Blasted Heath?

> About faults: here too there is that trouble with the focussing of the
> foreground like in StephenS's scene.
>

I think that is a different cause.

I suspect it is caused by using a reflective texture for the skin and 
the materials and normals on the floor. When I create a stereo image for 
my shutter glasses. The image is crystal clear and I can see the colours 
of the halo around the priestess properly.


As for being cosy. The poses are taken from this.

https://www.thinglink.com/scene/659847343616557056

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 6/11/2016 1:42 PM, StephenS wrote:
> ....
>> I still don't understand why using toed in cameras is not better.
> ....
>
> Try http://paulbourke.net/stereographics/stereorender/
>
> I re-found this recently.
>

Excellent! find. It helps a lot. I might remember it now.
Now I need a non symmetric camera frustum. But we have one.
The good Dr John posted a macro for a true architectural field camera. 
That might do the trick.


http://news.povray.org/povray.text.scene-files/thread/%3Cweb.3e0c736a1f1273cdb29393de0%40news.povray.org%3E/

If not Friedrich Lohmüller has a trick or two.

Thanks Stephen
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.06.2016 um 17:33 schrieb Stephen:

>> About faults: here too there is that trouble with the focussing of the
>> foreground like in StephenS's scene.
>>
> 
> I think that is a different cause.
> 
> I suspect it is caused by using a reflective texture for the skin and
> the materials and normals on the floor. When I create a stereo image for
> my shutter glasses. The image is crystal clear and I can see the colours
> of the halo around the priestess properly.

Now that you mention it:

You certainly have gotten _something_ wrong in your image. Stuff should
be offset horizontally only, but virtually everything in your scene is
also offset vertically. That certainly makes for very tedious viewing.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/12/2016 2:56 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 11.06.2016 um 17:33 schrieb Stephen:
>
>>> About faults: here too there is that trouble with the focussing of the
>>> foreground like in StephenS's scene.
>>>
>>
>> I think that is a different cause.
>>
>> I suspect it is caused by using a reflective texture for the skin and
>> the materials and normals on the floor. When I create a stereo image for
>> my shutter glasses. The image is crystal clear and I can see the colours
>> of the halo around the priestess properly.
>
> Now that you mention it:
>
> You certainly have gotten _something_ wrong in your image. Stuff should
> be offset horizontally only, but virtually everything in your scene is
> also offset vertically. That certainly makes for very tedious viewing.
>

I'll check that. I'm not familiar with the software and was trying the 
adjustments. Just pressing buttons and seeing what happened.
I don't think it is a good subject and tried a simple animation with an 
old BBC logo. The shutter glass version is crystal clear but the 
anaglyph has ghosting.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11-6-2016 17:43, Stephen wrote:
> On 6/11/2016 1:42 PM, StephenS wrote:
>> ....
>>> I still don't understand why using toed in cameras is not better.
>> ....
>>
>> Try http://paulbourke.net/stereographics/stereorender/
>>
>> I re-found this recently.
>>
>
> Excellent! find. It helps a lot. I might remember it now.
> Now I need a non symmetric camera frustum. But we have one.
> The good Dr John posted a macro for a true architectural field camera.
> That might do the trick.
>

I am still grateful for the fieldcam. It has helped me in lots of ways. 
I had not realised though that it was exactly the camera needed for 3D.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11-6-2016 17:33, Stephen wrote:
> On 6/11/2016 12:20 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I remember that scene now and this one is a somewhat unexpected follow
>> up on it. It made me grin: going from high drama to cosy chatting. But
>> what do you expect? Theatre.
>>
>> Now, how about King Lear, hm?
>>
>
> Shalt thou play the king to my fool on yon Blasted Heath?

I am afraid I am already the fool.

>
>> About faults: here too there is that trouble with the focussing of the
>> foreground like in StephenS's scene.
>>
>
> I think that is a different cause.
>
> I suspect it is caused by using a reflective texture for the skin and
> the materials and normals on the floor. When I create a stereo image for
> my shutter glasses. The image is crystal clear and I can see the colours
> of the halo around the priestess properly.

Maybe, but I suspect it has to do with what Clipka mentions and maybe 
with non-symmetry.

>
>
> As for being cosy. The poses are taken from this.
>
> https://www.thinglink.com/scene/659847343616557056
>

<shudder> I would not care to join them </shudder>. I have a problem 
with man-built heights; curiously enough, none at all with natural heights.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 12/06/2016 2:55 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
...
> I had not realised though that it was exactly the camera needed for 3D.
>
For animations and scenes with left/right border elements, yes.

This is why I usually post only frame centered objects with white space 
close to the borders.

Stephen S

Post a reply to this message

On 6/12/2016 8:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 11-6-2016 17:33, Stephen wrote:

>>
>> Shalt thou play the king to my fool on yon Blasted Heath?
>
> I am afraid I am already the fool.


Bags I Cornwell.
Not for the gore. My wife is called Regan.


>
> Maybe, but I suspect it has to do with what Clipka mentions and maybe
> with non-symmetry.
>

As for that image, probably.

Starting afresh I made a 240 frame animation as a test. It looks perfect 
with the shutter glasses but there is ghosting in the horizontal 
direction. When I save it in the Red/Cyan format.

I attach a frame and will follow up with the left and right images.
It is meant to be behind the screen.
Comments welcome.

>>
>
> <shudder> I would not care to join them </shudder>. I have a problem
> with man-built heights; curiously enough, none at all with natural heights.
>

I just can't stand heights. In nature I won't go near an edge.
When I worked on the rigs. I just had to do it.
Climbing to the top of a crane to work on a sensor. To climbing to the 
top of the drilling derrick and watching someone else change an anemometer.
"Lunch atop a skyscraper" is like a toothache. The type you have to 
probe. To make sure it is still there.



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'bbc07_rc_0070.jpg' (523 KB)

Preview of image 'bbc07_rc_0070.jpg'

On 6/12/2016 1:29 PM, StephenS wrote:
> On 12/06/2016 2:55 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> ....
>> I had not realised though that it was exactly the camera needed for 3D.
>>
> For animations and scenes with left/right border elements, yes.
>
> This is why I usually post only frame centered objects with white space
> close to the borders.
>


Good to hear it. I always wondered and thought you were a purist. :)
Now I know why. I may have been a little bit over ambitious picking that 
scene to start off with.

I'm still having problems with the red/cyan images that I don't have 
with yours.
Ah! well. It's called learning. :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 6/12/2016 1:37 PM, Stephen wrote:
> follow up with the left and right images


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'bbc07_l_0070.png' (162 KB) Download 'bbc07_r_0070.png' (160 KB)

Preview of image 'bbc07_l_0070.png'

Preview of image 'bbc07_r_0070.png'

On 12/06/2016 8:37 AM, Stephen wrote:
...
> It looks perfect
> with the shutter glasses but there is ghosting in the horizontal
> direction. When I save it in the Red/Cyan format.
...

Two good examples of the limitations of red/cyan.
High contrast; very dark beside very bright, without a transition.
---I use mostly gray scale images to limit this.
Saturated colour channels; Full red on the red side and full cyan on the 
cyan side(this means the use of black).
---did I mention gray scale images already ;-)

The picture is fine, the use of red/cyan anaglyph is poor.
Shutter glasses all the way for this scene.

Stephen S

Post a reply to this message

On 10/06/2016 4:46 PM, Stephen wrote:
...
> There are a couple of obvious faults but comments welcome.
...
-I might reduce the camera separation by half.
-When joining the two pictures, place the picture frame at the viewing 
plane(zero separation)
-Make sure the scene camera only has horizontal offset.

For almost all of my scenes when I go to make the right/left image, I 
place the scene in a union and the camera at 0x lookat 0x. I them move 
the union(scene) around to give the correct depth queues, and only 
change the x offsets on the camera to make my right/left images.

Stephen S

Post a reply to this message

On 6/12/2016 3:15 PM, StephenS wrote:
> On 12/06/2016 8:37 AM, Stephen wrote:
> ....
>> It looks perfect
>> with the shutter glasses but there is ghosting in the horizontal
>> direction. When I save it in the Red/Cyan format.
> ....
>
> Two good examples of the limitations of red/cyan.
> High contrast; very dark beside very bright, without a transition.
> ---I use mostly gray scale images to limit this.
> Saturated colour channels; Full red on the red side and full cyan on the
> cyan side(this means the use of black).
> ---did I mention gray scale images already ;-)
>


I like not this news. :(
But I think you have saved me a lot of time. :)
I shall ponder.

> The picture is fine, the use of red/cyan anaglyph is poor.
> Shutter glasses all the way for this scene.
>

Limitations in the scene itself?


 > -I might reduce the camera separation by half.
 > -When joining the two pictures, place the picture frame at the
 > viewing plane(zero separation)

That's what I was aiming for.


 > -Make sure the scene camera only has horizontal offset.
 >

This one I got right. :)

 > For almost all of my scenes when I go to make the right/left image, I
 > place the scene in a union and the camera at 0x lookat 0x. I them 
 > move the union(scene) around to give the correct depth queues,

I will try that, thanks. I generally move the camera.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 12/06/16 07:55, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> 
> I am still grateful for the fieldcam. It has helped me in lots of ways.
> I had not realised though that it was exactly the camera needed for 3D.
> 

Nor had I, TBH. Incidentally, is it really 13 rears since I wrote that?

Jon
-- 
It's not about bravery.
It's about doing what I need to do to win

Post a reply to this message

On 6/12/2016 10:50 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 12/06/16 07:55, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>> I am still grateful for the fieldcam. It has helped me in lots of ways.
>> I had not realised though that it was exactly the camera needed for 3D.
>>
>
> Nor had I, TBH. Incidentally, is it really 13 rears since I wrote that?
>

Doesn't time fly?

> Jon
>

   ^^^
   ¦¦¦ A typo? Or have you been born again?

BTW Bravery is what other people do. We just get on with it.™



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 12-6-2016 14:37, Stephen wrote:
> Starting afresh I made a 240 frame animation as a test. It looks perfect
> with the shutter glasses but there is ghosting in the horizontal
> direction. When I save it in the Red/Cyan format.
>
> I attach a frame and will follow up with the left and right images.
> It is meant to be behind the screen.
> Comments welcome.
>

A thought about that ghosting: maybe that is due to a slight colour 
discrepancy between the red of the image and the red of the spectacles?


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 6/13/2016 7:43 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> A thought about that ghosting: maybe that is due to a slight colour
> discrepancy between the red of the image and the red of the spectacles?
>

I think Stephen's on the right track and there are some images which are 
not suitable for anaglyphs.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13-6-2016 10:46, Stephen wrote:
> On 6/13/2016 7:43 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> A thought about that ghosting: maybe that is due to a slight colour
>> discrepancy between the red of the image and the red of the spectacles?
>>
>
> I think Stephen's on the right track and there are some images which are
> not suitable for anaglyphs.
>

Sadly, it makes sense.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message