Date   

Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Cameron Kaiser
 

"Incomplete" does not go anywhere close to describing the distortion of
2-D. If you take every point from the closest object to infinity and
squash everything down to a single flat plane, this is the greatest amount
of distortion possible in an image.
Good luck with the windmill tilting.

--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@floodgap.com
-- Don't Be Evil. -- Paul Buchheit --------------------------------------------


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

John Rupkalvis
 

"Incomplete" does not go anywhere close to describing the distortion of 2-D.  If you take every point from the closest object to infinity and squash everything down to a single flat plane, this is the greatest amount of distortion possible in an image.  

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:50 PM Cameron Kaiser <spectre@...> wrote:
> While I appreciate your enthusiasm promoting 3d, I personally don't think
> the way you present this is accurate.  You might want to re-word the
> shortcoming of 2d vs. 3d.  I feel the term distortion you pursue, is not
> accurate.  Maybe a better worded term / phrase would better represent your
> position, and be more representative of the real difference.

How about "incomplete"? I think we'd all agree with that.

--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@...
-- You can't kill me because I've got magic aaargh. -- Terry Pratchett --------






Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Cameron Kaiser
 

While I appreciate your enthusiasm promoting 3d, I personally don't think
the way you present this is accurate. You might want to re-word the
shortcoming of 2d vs. 3d. I feel the term distortion you pursue, is not
accurate. Maybe a better worded term / phrase would better represent your
position, and be more representative of the real difference.
How about "incomplete"? I think we'd all agree with that.

--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@floodgap.com
-- You can't kill me because I've got magic aaargh. -- Terry Pratchett --------


Re: Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

timo@guildwood.net
 

I wish you luck with installing a septum on the lumix 3D lens. I tried to do it but I was disappointed with the results. I went as close to the shutter as I dared, but there was no improvement on the image overlap on my Sony apsc sensor. There was a bit of degradation though.
Perhaps a wider septum would cast a shadow at the right spot.

Timo

Sent from BlueMail

On Sep 21, 2020, at 5:30 PM, "akdens2 via groups.io" <yahoo.com@groups.io target=_blank>akdens2=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
This spreadsheet provides enormous information about the different camera models with different resolutions and their pixel counts when used with a 3d  Lumix lens.

I have been also within this discussion from the beginning although I am not a big fan of this lens and particularly of the 4:3 system.

Nevertheless I wanted to understand WHY the quoted numbers are the way they are given.

I have attached 3 drawings that demonstrate my interpretation of how these numbers are obtained.
Because I don't know how to draw with computers I have first drawn them on  paper and then photographed the drawings.

The separation of the lens is important as it is also the center to center dimension of the L & R images. (This 10mmwill increase slightly in macro but so will the image circle as well)
The imaging area dimensions are also important which is taken as 17.3mm X 13mm.
I couldn't find data about the diameter of the imaging circle of the lens, but I have measured it and found it to be about 13mm.
The resolution is taken as 4602 X 3454 , 16MP.

As seen in the spreadsheet there are cameras having various values regarding the resolution, although not much different from each other.

Logically a higher resolution sensor should yield  higher resolution image pairs , but it seems the designers didn't care much about this issue and instead opted for the ease of fixed resolutions.

Drawing I demonstrates my understanding about how the 3D image is formed on the 4:3 sensor and how the horizontal resolution value is obtained.
The 1860px I calculated is very close to the 1824px shown in the sheet and a little bit under the highest  1920px.
This minor difference could be due to the difference in fractions of a mm in the measured 13mm imaging circle.

If you look at the GH2 multi aspect sensor resolutions, you will notice that all horizontal values are the same (1920px) in spite of having different useable sensor widths.

This phenomenon is demonstrated in drawings II and III that show two exaggerated cases, where although the sensor width in Dr. III is twice as in Dr.II, the final stereo image is the same. Because the extra parts at both edges of the sensor can not be used because they are not present at the opposite side pair. It could be possible if the lenses could be shifted outwards.

On the other hand I have other plans for this 3D lens.
I already have several macro 3D lenses that I use on APS-C sensor cameras that enable me to achieve  large range of magnification values with more than 90% of sensor area utilization.
The focal lengths of the lenses that I use in these eight 3D lenses are 21mm, 28mm, 35mm and 50mm.
Even the 35mm equivalent of the widest lens(21mm) for half sensor width images is 68mm which is considered a mid tele.

On the other hand I like the perspective obtained with wide angle lenses in 3D and particularly in macro range.
The 35 mm equivalent focal length of this lens under the same circumstances will be 40mm.

What I will do is, buy another Lumix 3D lens, dismantle it, separate the individual lenses and replace them according to the dimensions of the APS-C sensor, using a suitable lens adapter.
I will also add a septum in between them so that the image circles are not overlapped as seen in Dr.I , so that more horizontal pixels can be extracted from the sensor.
( I don't know why the manufacturer of this lens didn't include a septum, they could this way minimize the width loss at the center of the sensor. May be in order not to confuse the customer)

This way I am planning to obtain about 2620px horizontally for each pair, if used on a NX 1000 for instance.
Other APS-C cameras with higher resolution could yield higher resolution pairs.
The images then would need to be batch cropped from top and the bottom and processed in SPM.

Oktay

Attachments:


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Bill G
 

>  One sees a brighter image when using two objectives. Information from both eyes is integrated and this makes us more observant, even without stereoscopic vision.

When I used to be into astronomy, even with the use of a single objective telescope, I used a bino viewer.  It is an attachment that goes in place of the eyepiece.  With the use of mirrors, it provides two identical images to each eye.  Why?  We see more resolution when two eyes are feeding the brain information.   In addition, even though the total brightness does not change, the image appears much brighter with the use of two eyes.  It is estimated at about 40% perceived improvement in brightness.  There are many reasons why two eyes supersede one eye that are unrelated to stereoscopic deviation.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 2:28 PM George Themelis <gathemelis@...> wrote:

I remember when I saw the 3D movie “Up” with my wife in the theater. I loved the movie and thought that the depth was conservative, but good. After the movie, I asked my wife “how did you like the depth?”  Her response: “I did not notice it.”  I took this as a positive comment, i.e. depth looked natural.

 

My wife is like Francois’ sister, and a lot of other people who do not notice depth as much as we (stereo enthusiasts) do.

 

One last comment, related to “If 2-D were better than 3-D, everyone would be wearing eye patches.  “

 

No one said that 2D is better than 3D. What has been said is that only in close-ups, etc., that stereoscopic vision is useful and it is possible that a person without stereoscopic vision can lead a normal life.

 

Using two eyes is better than using one eye, even without stereoscopic vision. For example, wider field of view (try driving with an eyepatch). I am into binocular Astronomy. There is no stereoscopic vision when using binoculars to look at the night sky. But there are still advantages to using two eyes and two objectives to observe the sky, and this field has many devotees. One sees a brighter image when using two objectives. Information from both eyes is integrated and this makes us more observant, even without stereoscopic vision. For example if you have “floaters” the brain can ignore them using the information from one eye to cover for the other (they are more annoying if you are only using one eye). Etc.

 

George

 

 

 

From: John Rupkalvis
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 4:41 PM
To: main@photo-3d.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Photo-3d] Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

 

As far as people turning off 3-D when it is available, this is ridiculous.  Some people are idiots.

 

If 2-D were better than 3-D, everyone would be wearing eye patches.    What is needed is education and stereoscopic appreciation through observation so that people learn what is better and why it is better. 

 

We need people supporting 3-D, not looking for ways to denigrate it.

 


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Bernard Harper
 

 >The true 3D world cannot be captured via a pair of flat images.  It would require thousands from every possible angle to reproduce it.  Therefore it's now clear that stereoscopy is a distorted view of the true three dimensional world!  Francois

Hi Francois,

     You are correct about the 2D distortions, as the evidence on my website (below) clearly shows. But I can report with authority that the 3D distortions you describe can be completely avoided. If you shoot orthosterescopically and project the images life size in 3D, they are geometrically indistinguishable from the original.  I demonstrated in many experiments that when projecting people's image life size, if they stood next to their virtual still image a viewer in the correct position saw a near identical twin. The effect seems almost holographic until the viewer moves around. The image then distorts, but the real person does not. Returning to the correct orthostereoscopic viewing position restores the geometry. And once again you see a projected twin of the real person with identical shpe, size and proportions. I

Bernard Harper PhD

Vision Scientist and Stereographer

www.bernieharper.co.uk


Re: Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

Oktay
 

This spreadsheet provides enormous information about the different camera models with different resolutions and their pixel counts when used with a 3d  Lumix lens.

I have been also within this discussion from the beginning although I am not a big fan of this lens and particularly of the 4:3 system.

Nevertheless I wanted to understand WHY the quoted numbers are the way they are given.

I have attached 3 drawings that demonstrate my interpretation of how these numbers are obtained.
Because I don't know how to draw with computers I have first drawn them on  paper and then photographed the drawings.

The separation of the lens is important as it is also the center to center dimension of the L & R images. (This 10mmwill increase slightly in macro but so will the image circle as well)
The imaging area dimensions are also important which is taken as 17.3mm X 13mm.
I couldn't find data about the diameter of the imaging circle of the lens, but I have measured it and found it to be about 13mm.
The resolution is taken as 4602 X 3454 , 16MP.

As seen in the spreadsheet there are cameras having various values regarding the resolution, although not much different from each other.

Logically a higher resolution sensor should yield  higher resolution image pairs , but it seems the designers didn't care much about this issue and instead opted for the ease of fixed resolutions.

Drawing I demonstrates my understanding about how the 3D image is formed on the 4:3 sensor and how the horizontal resolution value is obtained.
The 1860px I calculated is very close to the 1824px shown in the sheet and a little bit under the highest  1920px.
This minor difference could be due to the difference in fractions of a mm in the measured 13mm imaging circle.

If you look at the GH2 multi aspect sensor resolutions, you will notice that all horizontal values are the same (1920px) in spite of having different useable sensor widths.

This phenomenon is demonstrated in drawings II and III that show two exaggerated cases, where although the sensor width in Dr. III is twice as in Dr.II, the final stereo image is the same. Because the extra parts at both edges of the sensor can not be used because they are not present at the opposite side pair. It could be possible if the lenses could be shifted outwards.

On the other hand I have other plans for this 3D lens.
I already have several macro 3D lenses that I use on APS-C sensor cameras that enable me to achieve  large range of magnification values with more than 90% of sensor area utilization.
The focal lengths of the lenses that I use in these eight 3D lenses are 21mm, 28mm, 35mm and 50mm.
Even the 35mm equivalent of the widest lens(21mm) for half sensor width images is 68mm which is considered a mid tele.

On the other hand I like the perspective obtained with wide angle lenses in 3D and particularly in macro range.
The 35 mm equivalent focal length of this lens under the same circumstances will be 40mm.

What I will do is, buy another Lumix 3D lens, dismantle it, separate the individual lenses and replace them according to the dimensions of the APS-C sensor, using a suitable lens adapter.
I will also add a septum in between them so that the image circles are not overlapped as seen in Dr.I , so that more horizontal pixels can be extracted from the sensor.
( I don't know why the manufacturer of this lens didn't include a septum, they could this way minimize the width loss at the center of the sensor. May be in order not to confuse the customer)

This way I am planning to obtain about 2620px horizontally for each pair, if used on a NX 1000 for instance.
Other APS-C cameras with higher resolution could yield higher resolution pairs.
The images then would need to be batch cropped from top and the bottom and processed in SPM.

Oktay


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

George Themelis
 

I remember when I saw the 3D movie “Up” with my wife in the theater. I loved the movie and thought that the depth was conservative, but good. After the movie, I asked my wife “how did you like the depth?”  Her response: “I did not notice it.”  I took this as a positive comment, i.e. depth looked natural.

 

My wife is like Francois’ sister, and a lot of other people who do not notice depth as much as we (stereo enthusiasts) do.

 

One last comment, related to “If 2-D were better than 3-D, everyone would be wearing eye patches.  “

 

No one said that 2D is better than 3D. What has been said is that only in close-ups, etc., that stereoscopic vision is useful and it is possible that a person without stereoscopic vision can lead a normal life.

 

Using two eyes is better than using one eye, even without stereoscopic vision. For example, wider field of view (try driving with an eyepatch). I am into binocular Astronomy. There is no stereoscopic vision when using binoculars to look at the night sky. But there are still advantages to using two eyes and two objectives to observe the sky, and this field has many devotees. One sees a brighter image when using two objectives. Information from both eyes is integrated and this makes us more observant, even without stereoscopic vision. For example if you have “floaters” the brain can ignore them using the information from one eye to cover for the other (they are more annoying if you are only using one eye). Etc.

 

George

 

 

 

From: John Rupkalvis
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 4:41 PM
To: main@photo-3d.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Photo-3d] Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

 

As far as people turning off 3-D when it is available, this is ridiculous.  Some people are idiots.

 

If 2-D were better than 3-D, everyone would be wearing eye patches.    What is needed is education and stereoscopic appreciation through observation so that people learn what is better and why it is better. 

 

We need people supporting 3-D, not looking for ways to denigrate it.

 


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Bill G
 

I doubt anyone on this list is denigrating 3d, let's get real here, it's a 3d forum!
We don't need to promote 3d on this forum, that's for sure.  Its crazy what many of us do to promote our own 3d endeavors!
I think you are not accepting our opinions on your position - 2d is distorted. 
While I appreciate your enthusiasm promoting 3d, I personally don't think the way you present this is accurate.  You might want to re-word the shortcoming of 2d vs. 3d.  I feel the term distortion you pursue, is not accurate.  Maybe a better worded term / phrase would better represent your position, and be more representative of the real difference.



On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 1:41 PM John Rupkalvis <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:
Certainly it is possible to find exceptions to any common situation, but these do not invalidate the premise.  Anytime you see a landscape or cityscape you also have things that are closer, including yourself.  A 2-D representation is still a distortion.  3-D is normal and far superior to 2-D.   2-D is distorted and inferior to 3-D.

As far as people turning off 3-D when it is available, this is ridiculous.  Some people are idiots.

If 2-D were better than 3-D, everyone would be wearing eye patches.    What is needed is education and stereoscopic appreciation through observation so that people learn what is better and why it is better. 

We need people supporting 3-D, not looking for ways to denigrate it.

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:46 AM, John Rupkalvis wrote:
People have two eyes because stereoscopic 3-D images are better than monoscopic 2-D

Are you actually saying that nature provided humans with two eyes because it knew that one day humans would be creating stereoscopic images ?

Even though it's true that stereoscopic vision aids in depth perception, most humans go about their day totally unaware that they see in 3D.  That's why most people that view stereo images for the first time need a crash course on stereoscopic vision.  My own sister who lost sight in one eye a few years ago went on with life as if nothing had happened. She called me up shortly after the accident and asked me "What is this things about stereo vision ?"  She explained that the doctor had told her she would no longer see depth stereoscopically.  She had no idea what the doctor was talking about.  She explained to me that everything about her sight was "just the same" as it had always been.  She never at any time in her life was aware that her eyes perceived depth and she had totally forgotten the 3D images I had shown her years earlier.

Even though most people that see 3D images are amazed, they continue being completely happy viewing 2D pictures and movies.  That's why 3D has never succeeded in supplanting 2D.  People simply are either not aware of or don't care about 3D vision.  That's also why the 3DS was discontinued.  Most gamers put the 3D mode to "off".

Francois


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

John Rupkalvis
 

Certainly it is possible to find exceptions to any common situation, but these do not invalidate the premise.  Anytime you see a landscape or cityscape you also have things that are closer, including yourself.  A 2-D representation is still a distortion.  3-D is normal and far superior to 2-D.   2-D is distorted and inferior to 3-D.

As far as people turning off 3-D when it is available, this is ridiculous.  Some people are idiots.

If 2-D were better than 3-D, everyone would be wearing eye patches.    What is needed is education and stereoscopic appreciation through observation so that people learn what is better and why it is better. 

We need people supporting 3-D, not looking for ways to denigrate it.

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:46 AM, John Rupkalvis wrote:
People have two eyes because stereoscopic 3-D images are better than monoscopic 2-D

Are you actually saying that nature provided humans with two eyes because it knew that one day humans would be creating stereoscopic images ?

Even though it's true that stereoscopic vision aids in depth perception, most humans go about their day totally unaware that they see in 3D.  That's why most people that view stereo images for the first time need a crash course on stereoscopic vision.  My own sister who lost sight in one eye a few years ago went on with life as if nothing had happened. She called me up shortly after the accident and asked me "What is this things about stereo vision ?"  She explained that the doctor had told her she would no longer see depth stereoscopically.  She had no idea what the doctor was talking about.  She explained to me that everything about her sight was "just the same" as it had always been.  She never at any time in her life was aware that her eyes perceived depth and she had totally forgotten the 3D images I had shown her years earlier.

Even though most people that see 3D images are amazed, they continue being completely happy viewing 2D pictures and movies.  That's why 3D has never succeeded in supplanting 2D.  People simply are either not aware of or don't care about 3D vision.  That's also why the 3DS was discontinued.  Most gamers put the 3D mode to "off".

Francois


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Bill G
 

Cinema was a good example...
even though I am 3d crazed...
when I go to a nice cinema theater, and get a healthy 55-60 deg FOV
I am impressed with the imagery... I don't struggle with... hey, there is no depth, everything is distorted.  My brain fills in the missing binocular disparity as best it can... no feeling of distortion.
Is the depth as pronounced as if it was 3d?  No, it's not.
But I can honestly say, it's good enough, which is Francois point...
and prob. best explains why 3d died in the theaters.
But if 3d is an option in the theater, I gladly pay the upcharge and always view in 3d, but I (probably most of us on this forum) represent 1/100 of the gen. population, sadly. 



On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:46 AM, John Rupkalvis wrote:
People have two eyes because stereoscopic 3-D images are better than monoscopic 2-D

Are you actually saying that nature provided humans with two eyes because it knew that one day humans would be creating stereoscopic images ?

Even though it's true that stereoscopic vision aids in depth perception, most humans go about their day totally unaware that they see in 3D.  That's why most people that view stereo images for the first time need a crash course on stereoscopic vision.  My own sister who lost sight in one eye a few years ago went on with life as if nothing had happened. She called me up shortly after the accident and asked me "What is this things about stereo vision ?"  She explained that the doctor had told her she would no longer see depth stereoscopically.  She had no idea what the doctor was talking about.  She explained to me that everything about her sight was "just the same" as it had always been.  She never at any time in her life was aware that her eyes perceived depth and she had totally forgotten the 3D images I had shown her years earlier.

Even though most people that see 3D images are amazed, they continue being completely happy viewing 2D pictures and movies.  That's why 3D has never succeeded in supplanting 2D.  People simply are either not aware of or don't care about 3D vision.  That's also why the 3DS was discontinued.  Most gamers put the 3D mode to "off".

Francois


Re: May, 1: A new era in 3D photography?: Sony multi-terminal era

Mark Blum
 

Following up on my 9/19 post #127048, I confirmed that the new Sony Alpha a7C Mirrorless Digital Camera does not have a multi-terminal (USB Micro-B connector). Instead it has the newer USB Type-C® Terminal (SuperSpeed USB 5 Gbps [USB 3.2] compatible), which also offers power delivery. Sony does not indicate in their press release why they no longer use the USB Micro-B connector. The release states that remote camera control is via wifi and Bluetooth, suggesting that the USB Type-C® Terminal cannot be used to remotely control the camera, but I have not verified this. 


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Depthcam
 

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:46 AM, John Rupkalvis wrote:
People have two eyes because stereoscopic 3-D images are better than monoscopic 2-D

Are you actually saying that nature provided humans with two eyes because it knew that one day humans would be creating stereoscopic images ?

Even though it's true that stereoscopic vision aids in depth perception, most humans go about their day totally unaware that they see in 3D.  That's why most people that view stereo images for the first time need a crash course on stereoscopic vision.  My own sister who lost sight in one eye a few years ago went on with life as if nothing had happened. She called me up shortly after the accident and asked me "What is this things about stereo vision ?"  She explained that the doctor had told her she would no longer see depth stereoscopically.  She had no idea what the doctor was talking about.  She explained to me that everything about her sight was "just the same" as it had always been.  She never at any time in her life was aware that her eyes perceived depth and she had totally forgotten the 3D images I had shown her years earlier.

Even though most people that see 3D images are amazed, they continue being completely happy viewing 2D pictures and movies.  That's why 3D has never succeeded in supplanting 2D.  People simply are either not aware of or don't care about 3D vision.  That's also why the 3DS was discontinued.  Most gamers put the 3D mode to "off".

Francois


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

John Rupkalvis
 

The application is irrelevant.  Stereoscopic 3-D is better than distorted 2-D in gaming just as in other applications.  This is obvious.  

People have two eyes because stereoscopic 3-D images are better than monoscopic 2-D.  Removing one of the two images results in distorted 2-D because both eye-views, correctly displayed and viewed, are necessary for stereopsis.  

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


Virus-free. www.avast.com


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 5:09 AM Stereopix Net <contact@...> wrote:
There is nothing controversial about that at all

Several people took time to express their disagreement at several times, which shows that the statement is strongly controverted.

it is a true fact that all 2-D images are distorted, since they are all missing the third dimension which consists of everything along the Z axis.

It is true that 2D does not have a third dimension, but if there is no depth in the first place, the 2D representation is not distorted.
A text on a paper for example does not change if you read it with one or two eyes (there is obviously inherently no third dimension); and there are many other examples.
In a lot of games especially, the notion of depth does not exist.

To come back to the Nintendo 3DS, I played only one game on it and the stereoscopy was useful (in the gameplay) only once or two when the camera was fixed, purposely set to remove any monocular depth cue. The situations when it is true are not that common, and thus stereoscopy does not add much in the games: monoscopic projection is generally enough to have the joy to play, without the inconvenience of the narrow sweet spot.

stereoscopy is a distorted view of the true three dimensional world

I agree. By the way, the distortions are opportunities for artistic expression.

JackDesBwa


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Bill G
 

Some very valid points made here regarding 2d images being distorted views. 
While I love John R's 3d enthusiasm, I too don't subscribe to his description of 2d images.
I think it can also confuse many newcomers reading this position.
In addition to many of the arguments made in previous posts...
I will add the obvious one... a Cityscape or Landscape image, where all subjects are at infinity has no depth to human vision... so a 2d print and a 3d capture seen in a viewer would yield the same retinal images.  I can't imagine anyone suggesting the 2d capture is distorted.  ??
A 3d capture and 3d viewing adds stereoscopic deviation vs a 2d image.   All else remains equal.


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 12:02 AM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
> it is a true fact that all 2-D images are distorted


So let me see.  If I take a "distorted" 2D picture and then another a few inches to the side, then I have two distorted pictures.  And when l put them into a viewer, suddenly they magically "undistort" themselves, correct ?

But the truth is that our beloved "stereoscopy" is actually no more than two flat images.  The true 3D world cannot be captured via a pair of flat images.  It would require thousands from every possible angle to reproduce it.  Therefore it's now clear that stereoscopy is a distorted view of the true three dimensional world !

As for the great painters, they were doing exactly that: two-dimensional works conveying depth through other means.  They obviously have been successful since we still admire their works centuries after their passing.  They are found in the great museums of the world.  I wonder how many 3D pictures or movies will have such staying power ?

Francois


Re: Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

Jeff Ewen
 

This is my spreadsheet of Micro 4 thirds Panasonic and Olympus compatibility with the H-FT012 lens

Jeff


Re: Fuji lenticular film camera

Neil S.
 

For a while, maybe 20 years ago, there were some cheap versions of this on the market with 4 or 8 lenses.  I actually got one for $1 at the dollar store.  I may have used it once.


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

JackDesBwa|3D
 

There is nothing controversial about that at all

Several people took time to express their disagreement at several times, which shows that the statement is strongly controverted.

it is a true fact that all 2-D images are distorted, since they are all missing the third dimension which consists of everything along the Z axis.

It is true that 2D does not have a third dimension, but if there is no depth in the first place, the 2D representation is not distorted.
A text on a paper for example does not change if you read it with one or two eyes (there is obviously inherently no third dimension); and there are many other examples.
In a lot of games especially, the notion of depth does not exist.

To come back to the Nintendo 3DS, I played only one game on it and the stereoscopy was useful (in the gameplay) only once or two when the camera was fixed, purposely set to remove any monocular depth cue. The situations when it is true are not that common, and thus stereoscopy does not add much in the games: monoscopic projection is generally enough to have the joy to play, without the inconvenience of the narrow sweet spot.

stereoscopy is a distorted view of the true three dimensional world

I agree. By the way, the distortions are opportunities for artistic expression.

JackDesBwa


Re: Fuji lenticular film camera

Depthcam
 

It's not a lenticular camera but a sequential image camera designed to record action.

The 16-lens model but the 8-lens earlier model works the same way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBHiAO9-KNo

Francois


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Depthcam
 

> it is a true fact that all 2-D images are distorted


So let me see.  If I take a "distorted" 2D picture and then another a few inches to the side, then I have two distorted pictures.  And when l put them into a viewer, suddenly they magically "undistort" themselves, correct ?

But the truth is that our beloved "stereoscopy" is actually no more than two flat images.  The true 3D world cannot be captured via a pair of flat images.  It would require thousands from every possible angle to reproduce it.  Therefore it's now clear that stereoscopy is a distorted view of the true three dimensional world !

As for the great painters, they were doing exactly that: two-dimensional works conveying depth through other means.  They obviously have been successful since we still admire their works centuries after their passing.  They are found in the great museums of the world.  I wonder how many 3D pictures or movies will have such staying power ?

Francois

3721 - 3740 of 130796