Date   

Re: 3D Vision Monitor

robert mcafee
 

I just bought a new Acer XB241H which is Nvidia 3D Vision ready (no emitter in display). Best price I found for this current production monitor is P C Richard & Son in NYC area.  It has HDMI & DisplayPort inputs. To run above 60 Hz you must use the display port. 

I have used this successfully with an Alienware laptop which has a Mini DisplayPort   output (in addition to HDMI)

I am trying to find a way if possible to use an adapter/converter with the HDMI output of my other laptops. 

Thanks for the info.  Maybe I should be looking for a used desktop with suitable Nvidia card

On Wednesday, September 23, 2020, 09:58:09 AM EDT, jetozour <jtozour@...> wrote:


robert mcafee - 
8:44am   #127116  

Finally are you connecting yours to a desktop or laptop and what type of video connection at the computer - hdmi? DisplayPort? DVI?

answer - Desktop, Dual Link DVI  (DVI-D) at 120Hz.  I don't think that any other type of connection will work for Nvidia 3D Vision.

Jim Tozour

8:44am   #127116  


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

John Rupkalvis
 

Stereoscopic 3-D is important for all distances.  Something at a distance will appear at a distance in 3-D.  A star field will appear to be near infinity in 3-D, but at the screen plane in 2-D, even when the screen is close, which is another example of the 2-D distortion.  Only with 3-D can the proportions for all distances be correct, while with 2-D they are distorted.

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:13 AM John Rupkalvis via groups.io <stereoscope3d=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
It is true that hyperstereo is a distortion, but it is a very minor distortion as compared to 2D where there is no depth at all.  2D is the greatest possible distortion in imaging.  In 3D, even with a normal interaxial, there are still normal depth proportions out for several hundred feet.  Some have claimed that 3D is limited to close-ups, which is very false.  

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 8:13 AM <bglick97@...> wrote:
>  Since the result shows depth where our eyes cannot perceive depth, needless to say, such stereo images of distant scene are clearly distortions of reality as perceived by humans.  Only a 2D image can show an accurate depiction of subjects beyond the stereoscopic field.

             BINGO... this discussion has gone full circle.  Yes, it is amazing to me how much 3d I view which is a distortion vs. our unaided vision, mainly Hypers as u suggest, but also macros.  And quite often the case, with just normal 3d photography when the taking base is typically wider than avg. human eye spacing due to inability to get lens centers closer.  It is also a fair statement, that a distant scene can only be represented fairly (non distorted) with 2d image(s).

I much rather view a 2d scene vs. a 3d scene which is miniaturized (distorted) due to excessive taking interoc.   Assuming I want a realistic representation of the scene.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:06 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
Bil makes a good point when he brings up subject matter located beyond the stereoscopic field.  As he points out, at these distances, the left and right views are identical.  They are FLAT.  Therefore, whether one takes a single picture or two pictures spaced 65mm apart, the two images will look virtually identical...

However, we stereoscopic nuts have a trick up our sleeve.  We call it "hyperstereo".  So we widen the interaxial much beyond the distance between our human eyes and create a stereo image which contradicts what our eyes see.   Since the result shows depth where our eyes cannot perceive depth, needless to say, such stereo images of distant scene are clearly distortions of reality as perceived by humans.  Only a 2D image can show an accurate depiction of subjects beyond the stereoscopic field.

Francois


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

John Rupkalvis
 

It is true that hyperstereo is a distortion, but it is a very minor distortion as compared to 2D where there is no depth at all.  2D is the greatest possible distortion in imaging.  In 3D, even with a normal interaxial, there are still normal depth proportions out for several hundred feet.  Some have claimed that 3D is limited to close-ups, which is very false.  

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 8:13 AM <bglick97@...> wrote:
>  Since the result shows depth where our eyes cannot perceive depth, needless to say, such stereo images of distant scene are clearly distortions of reality as perceived by humans.  Only a 2D image can show an accurate depiction of subjects beyond the stereoscopic field.

             BINGO... this discussion has gone full circle.  Yes, it is amazing to me how much 3d I view which is a distortion vs. our unaided vision, mainly Hypers as u suggest, but also macros.  And quite often the case, with just normal 3d photography when the taking base is typically wider than avg. human eye spacing due to inability to get lens centers closer.  It is also a fair statement, that a distant scene can only be represented fairly (non distorted) with 2d image(s).

I much rather view a 2d scene vs. a 3d scene which is miniaturized (distorted) due to excessive taking interoc.   Assuming I want a realistic representation of the scene.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:06 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
Bil makes a good point when he brings up subject matter located beyond the stereoscopic field.  As he points out, at these distances, the left and right views are identical.  They are FLAT.  Therefore, whether one takes a single picture or two pictures spaced 65mm apart, the two images will look virtually identical...

However, we stereoscopic nuts have a trick up our sleeve.  We call it "hyperstereo".  So we widen the interaxial much beyond the distance between our human eyes and create a stereo image which contradicts what our eyes see.   Since the result shows depth where our eyes cannot perceive depth, needless to say, such stereo images of distant scene are clearly distortions of reality as perceived by humans.  Only a 2D image can show an accurate depiction of subjects beyond the stereoscopic field.

Francois


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

Bill G
 

>  Since the result shows depth where our eyes cannot perceive depth, needless to say, such stereo images of distant scene are clearly distortions of reality as perceived by humans.  Only a 2D image can show an accurate depiction of subjects beyond the stereoscopic field.

             BINGO... this discussion has gone full circle.  Yes, it is amazing to me how much 3d I view which is a distortion vs. our unaided vision, mainly Hypers as u suggest, but also macros.  And quite often the case, with just normal 3d photography when the taking base is typically wider than avg. human eye spacing due to inability to get lens centers closer.  It is also a fair statement, that a distant scene can only be represented fairly (non distorted) with 2d image(s).

I much rather view a 2d scene vs. a 3d scene which is miniaturized (distorted) due to excessive taking interoc.   Assuming I want a realistic representation of the scene.


On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:06 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
Bil makes a good point when he brings up subject matter located beyond the stereoscopic field.  As he points out, at these distances, the left and right views are identical.  They are FLAT.  Therefore, whether one takes a single picture or two pictures spaced 65mm apart, the two images will look virtually identical...

However, we stereoscopic nuts have a trick up our sleeve.  We call it "hyperstereo".  So we widen the interaxial much beyond the distance between our human eyes and create a stereo image which contradicts what our eyes see.   Since the result shows depth where our eyes cannot perceive depth, needless to say, such stereo images of distant scene are clearly distortions of reality as perceived by humans.  Only a 2D image can show an accurate depiction of subjects beyond the stereoscopic field.

Francois


Re: 3D Vision Monitor

jetozour
 

robert mcafee - 
8:44am  

Finally are you connecting yours to a desktop or laptop and what type of video connection at the computer - hdmi? DisplayPort? DVI?

answer - Desktop, Dual Link DVI  (DVI-D) at 120Hz.  I don't think that any other type of connection will work for Nvidia 3D Vision.

Jim Tozour

8:44am  


Re: 3D Vision Monitor

robert mcafee
 

Finally are you connecting yours to a desktop or laptop and what type of video connection at the computer - hdmi? DisplayPort? DVI?

I have 2 laptops with 3D Nvidia GeForce video cards, an external Nvidia emitter and required glasses but these laptops have only HDMI output and for the 3D to work (to operate monitor above 60Hz) you must connect to the monitor’s DVI or DisplayPort. That’s fine of course except on the computer end I don’t have either type of port. I was hoping I could use an HDMI to display port or DVI (depending on available monitor inputs) active adapter but it is not clear to me if this will work. 

On Wednesday, September 23, 2020, 09:35:01 AM EDT, jetozour <jtozour@...> wrote:


robert mcafee - 
7:28am   #127114  
Some data on the auction listings suggests these may be refurbished.

Some were listed as new in box, some as refurbished. Mine was listed as new in box and it is new in original box.

I think something is wrong with one of the two listings that are left, the shipping price shown is about twice what it was for mine to the same location.

Jim Tozour


Re: 3D Vision Monitor

jetozour
 

robert mcafee - 
7:28am  
Some data on the auction listings suggests these may be refurbished.

Some were listed as new in box, some as refurbished. Mine was listed as new in box and it is new in original box.

I think something is wrong with one of the two listings that are left, the shipping price shown is about twice what it was for mine to the same location.

Jim Tozour


Re: 3D Vision Monitor

robert mcafee
 

Some data on the auction listings suggests these may be refurbished. Is your impression these are new old stock or are they refurbished?  Was it in an original box with printed details for the monitor or in a brown box?

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020, 08:19:55 PM EDT, jetozour <jtozour@...> wrote:


robert mcafee asked:
3:45pm   #127109  

Nice deal. What glasses are needed for this?  
 
Did the monitor come with glasses?
 
If you have received yours, have you been able to make it work for 3D display?

answers: I use nvidia 3D vision glasses.

The monitor did not come with glasses or emitter. I already had them.

I received the monitor, connected it in place of my asus monitor, and it worked very well with nvidia 3D, just like my asus monitor.

Jim Tozour



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

Ronald Schalekamp <info@...>
 

I didnt say ALL scientists. If there are 2 believing, the statement is right.
If those (at least) 2 are right, then our 3d view is a distorted view of reality?

That's what i was saying.


Also there are lots of things that cant be 'verified', but lots of people believe in.
Try God.
Or Trumps alternative facts.


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

Depthcam
 

Bil makes a good point when he brings up subject matter located beyond the stereoscopic field.  As he points out, at these distances, the left and right views are identical.  They are FLAT.  Therefore, whether one takes a single picture or two pictures spaced 65mm apart, the two images will look virtually identical...

However, we stereoscopic nuts have a trick up our sleeve.  We call it "hyperstereo".  So we widen the interaxial much beyond the distance between our human eyes and create a stereo image which contradicts what our eyes see.   Since the result shows depth where our eyes cannot perceive depth, needless to say, such stereo images of distant scene are clearly distortions of reality as perceived by humans.  Only a 2D image can show an accurate depiction of subjects beyond the stereoscopic field.

Francois


Re: 3D Vision Monitor

Art Clark
 

For some reason they wanted $80 shipping to NorCal. I said forget it.....



Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: jetozour <jtozour@...>
Date: 9/22/20 5:19 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: main@Photo-3d.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Photo-3d] 3D Vision Monitor

robert mcafee asked:
3:45pm  

Nice deal. What glasses are needed for this?  
 
Did the monitor come with glasses?
 
If you have received yours, have you been able to make it work for 3D display?

answers: I use nvidia 3D vision glasses.

The monitor did not come with glasses or emitter. I already had them.

I received the monitor, connected it in place of my asus monitor, and it worked very well with nvidia 3D, just like my asus monitor.

Jim Tozour



Re: 3D Vision Monitor

jetozour
 

robert mcafee asked:
3:45pm  

Nice deal. What glasses are needed for this?  
 
Did the monitor come with glasses?
 
If you have received yours, have you been able to make it work for 3D display?

answers: I use nvidia 3D vision glasses.

The monitor did not come with glasses or emitter. I already had them.

I received the monitor, connected it in place of my asus monitor, and it worked very well with nvidia 3D, just like my asus monitor.

Jim Tozour



Re: 3D Vision Monitor

robert mcafee
 

Nice deal. What glasses are needed for this?  

Did the monitor come with glasses?

If you have received yours, have you been able to make it work for 3D display?

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020, 01:31:23 PM EDT, jetozour <jtozour@...> wrote:


I have been using an Asus VG236H 3D Vision ready monitor for a long time and I love it. It is TN. This thread prompted me to look for a spare 3D monitor in case I outlive my Asus. I just received  a "new in box"  Planar SA2311W 3D Ready Monitor from ebay for $106 with tax and shipping. Of coarse, it was made long ago, but it is "new in box" and works great. The manual is from 2010.  It is also TN. The stand is shorter than the one on the Asus, but a book or two would correct that. I think that there are more available.

Jim Tozour


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

John Clement
 

There are all kinds of multidimensional physics theories “hypotheses”, none of which can be verified.  One fourth dimensional idea is used to explain why the gravitational force is very weak.  So far these ideas have not been able to make predictions that can be verified.  As to believing there is a fourth dimension, that depends on what models they think are correct.  Actually in the conventional model for space time, time is often called the fourth dimension.  I would say that the vast majority of scientists do not believe in a fourth spatial dimension.  It is at present a mathematical idea which may or may not apply to our universe.  In models of how things work, there are mathematical constructs where systems have multiple orthogonal dimensions.  This is saying that a given system had multiple independent variables, which one might visualize in a multidimensional space.  So the statement that Scientists believe there is a fourth dimension, is a bit strong.

 

John M. Clement

 

 

From: main@Photo-3d.groups.io <main@Photo-3d.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ronald Schalekamp
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 9:45 AM
To: main@Photo-3d.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Photo-3d] Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

 

Scientists believe there is actually a fourth dimension.

https://interestingengineering.com/understanding-fourth-dimension-3d-perspective

Thus, our 3D view is a distorted view of the reality?


Re: 3D Vision Monitor

jetozour
 

I have been using an Asus VG236H 3D Vision ready monitor for a long time and I love it. It is TN. This thread prompted me to look for a spare 3D monitor in case I outlive my Asus. I just received  a "new in box"  Planar SA2311W 3D Ready Monitor from ebay for $106 with tax and shipping. Of coarse, it was made long ago, but it is "new in box" and works great. The manual is from 2010.  It is also TN. The stand is shorter than the one on the Asus, but a book or two would correct that. I think that there are more available.

Jim Tozour


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

Ronald Schalekamp <info@...>
 

Scientists believe there is actually a fourth dimension.

https://interestingengineering.com/understanding-fourth-dimension-3d-perspective

Thus, our 3D view is a distorted view of the reality?


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

Oktay
 

I will not install the septum on the Lumix 3D lens itself. I will break the body, remove the two lenses and re-install them according to APS-C sensor dimensions and then install the septum.
If necessary, I will install a front window as shown in the attachment to curb the stray rays. I think this window will be only necessary if I decide to install the lens pair in a focusing mechanism  for having variable magnification macro.

Oktay


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

John Rupkalvis
 

How can you possibly mean "exaggerated"?  The reason that I am emphasizing that 2-D images are distortions is that distortion is the most accurate word that I am aware of to describe the condition, although 2-D is such a severe distortion that it is way too mild of a description.  What we do NOT need to do is come up with weaker descriptions.  What we need to do is come up with stronger descriptions so that people will realize how important it is.  No matter how many monocular depth cues you have, an image will not look as realistic and interesting in 2-D as it will if it is in 3-D.  A flat 2-D image is a very bad, very severe distortion.  Anyone who thinks otherwise should join those weirdos at the flat earth society.  

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 4:58 PM <bglick97@...> wrote:
>  I think we need to be honest and realistic about what it adds - additional depth that provides an enjoyable and valuable (not to mention cool!) effect for many.

             Well stated Kevin.  I can reproduce everything in 2d as in 3d, EXCEPT stereoscopic Deviation to the viewer.  All else is equal.  Including image scale as stated in a previous post, or ortho.  This is a factor of FOV of taking lens matching the FOV of the viewing. 

All the 2d depth cues available in 2d, still exist in the 3d capture...but the binocular deviation in 3d gives it an added depth punch, WHEN, the image was captured with a scene that benefits from that deviation (assuming it exists).  The obvious examples are scenes with many near subjects (such as inside a forest), or seeing a flower or insect shot with 3d Macro.   But where the nearest subject is 100ft away, viewing a 3d image, or two 2d images, has nearly the identical view.   Binocular deviation is an imaging tool, when used in the right application, it presents a more lifelike and enjoyable image for most.  But not all scenes / subjects benefit from using this tool. 

>  t I think that exaggerated claims about stereoscopic images are more likely to be detrimental to our cause in promoting "3D".

          Again, very well stated....


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 4:38 PM Kevin Brooks via groups.io <locks_00=yahoo.co.uk@groups.io> wrote:

Thanks for the many excellent points made by so many people pointing out weaknesses in the statement "ALL 2-D images are horribly distorted" (note capitals are from the original post). Obviously, when one makes such an absolutist statement, they can hardly complain that: "Certainly it is possible to find exceptions to any common situation, but these do not invalidate the premise."

Simply re-stating ""it is a true fact", "This is obvious", or "There is nothing controversial about that" does not to overrule logic or established science/scholarship. On the other hand, as for the statement "Some people are idiots" - I certainly don't disagree.

I too appreciate your enthusiasm, John, but I think that exaggerated claims about stereoscopic images are more likely to be detrimental to our cause in promoting "3D". I think we need to be honest and realistic about what it adds - additional depth that provides an enjoyable and valuable (not to mention cool!) effect for many.

Kevin Brooks


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

Bill G
 

>  I think we need to be honest and realistic about what it adds - additional depth that provides an enjoyable and valuable (not to mention cool!) effect for many.

             Well stated Kevin.  I can reproduce everything in 2d as in 3d, EXCEPT stereoscopic Deviation to the viewer.  All else is equal.  Including image scale as stated in a previous post, or ortho.  This is a factor of FOV of taking lens matching the FOV of the viewing. 

All the 2d depth cues available in 2d, still exist in the 3d capture...but the binocular deviation in 3d gives it an added depth punch, WHEN, the image was captured with a scene that benefits from that deviation (assuming it exists).  The obvious examples are scenes with many near subjects (such as inside a forest), or seeing a flower or insect shot with 3d Macro.   But where the nearest subject is 100ft away, viewing a 3d image, or two 2d images, has nearly the identical view.   Binocular deviation is an imaging tool, when used in the right application, it presents a more lifelike and enjoyable image for most.  But not all scenes / subjects benefit from using this tool. 

>  t I think that exaggerated claims about stereoscopic images are more likely to be detrimental to our cause in promoting "3D".

          Again, very well stated....


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 4:38 PM Kevin Brooks via groups.io <locks_00=yahoo.co.uk@groups.io> wrote:

Thanks for the many excellent points made by so many people pointing out weaknesses in the statement "ALL 2-D images are horribly distorted" (note capitals are from the original post). Obviously, when one makes such an absolutist statement, they can hardly complain that: "Certainly it is possible to find exceptions to any common situation, but these do not invalidate the premise."

Simply re-stating ""it is a true fact", "This is obvious", or "There is nothing controversial about that" does not to overrule logic or established science/scholarship. On the other hand, as for the statement "Some people are idiots" - I certainly don't disagree.

I too appreciate your enthusiasm, John, but I think that exaggerated claims about stereoscopic images are more likely to be detrimental to our cause in promoting "3D". I think we need to be honest and realistic about what it adds - additional depth that provides an enjoyable and valuable (not to mention cool!) effect for many.

Kevin Brooks


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

Kevin Brooks
 


Thanks for the many excellent points made by so many people pointing out weaknesses in the statement "ALL 2-D images are horribly distorted" (note capitals are from the original post). Obviously, when one makes such an absolutist statement, they can hardly complain that: "Certainly it is possible to find exceptions to any common situation, but these do not invalidate the premise."

Simply re-stating ""it is a true fact", "This is obvious", or "There is nothing controversial about that" does not to overrule logic or established science/scholarship. On the other hand, as for the statement "Some people are idiots" - I certainly don't disagree.

I too appreciate your enthusiasm, John, but I think that exaggerated claims about stereoscopic images are more likely to be detrimental to our cause in promoting "3D". I think we need to be honest and realistic about what it adds - additional depth that provides an enjoyable and valuable (not to mention cool!) effect for many.

Kevin Brooks