3D Without 3D Glasses

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
I suppose this was just a matter of time, given some talent and some out of the box innovation involving a little bit of electronics and a hookup to your nerves.

I don't know how well this works or how long the viewer can take watching 3D this way. I'm not all at sure I even want to try it.

3D without glasses

This is my first attempt at a thread here BTW.




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Your eyes Goddammit.



Not for me thanks.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   
This is old and its a fake viral advert...



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 


I hope you're just kidding though.

They have had 3D without glasses for a while. But this is not it. It's fake.

Pllleease tell me you knew this!!!

oO



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 


I'd never seen that one before. If it's an old fake, that's just as well. I'm not sure there would be much of a market for that sort of thing.

OTOH I wonder if it's possible to cause a person's eyelid to flutter at 30 or more frames per second? Is there possibly some threshold at a lower blink rate which would induce 3D vision of a static object as opposed to one which is moving? I've been able to induce 3D, manually, from individual photos in photoshop by skewing the bottom half of an appropriate photo.

The one odd effect is the more skew the closer to the ground level it appears the photo was taken.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 


The muscles, even if it were possible, would simply cease up.

Here is a video of the maker of that, showcasing his cgi effects.. it includes your video.



Also, stereopgraphic images, without glasses, can be viewed if you can cross your eyes to form the third, 3D, image in the centre. I've been able to do this since I was a kid.

This is not the same as relaxing your eyes to allow them to see the image, this is going cross eyed.. As the middle image starts to merge, suddenly it jumps out at you, and you can look within the entire image, seeing everything in complete 3D. I love these things.


edit on 10-5-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


No -- hadn't seen that one before! My deep expertise lies in another field. But I've kept an eye on the progress being made in 3D television. I'm aware of the 3D TV which uses a pattern of pixels with some depth to actually send different images to each eye -- it supposedly looks OK if you are right in front of it. That's been around a few years, I believe.

3D has fascinated me ever since, once, when looking at a video camera in a local TV store, I trained the video camera on a TV which was close. The image in the camera viewscreen had a strong 3D appearance. It only worked with a couple of TVs, not all of them. I never quite figured that one out although I suspected it may have had something to do with refresh rates or the pixel grids on both sets. It was really odd and highly repeatable.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend
reply to post by BayesLike
 


The muscles, even if it were possible, would simply cease up.



I completely buy the idea there is an upper limit on muscle twitches -- hearts can get up to about 300 beats a minute in fibrillation, maybe more, and sustain that for a while (not long). But that's only about 5 twitches a second, 10 alternating eyes. So, with a little reflection about the rates required, which I assume is around 30, it doesn't appear likely.

Then again, maybe 5 flutters a second per eye is enough for the image fusion to occur for still objects?



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend
reply to post by BayesLike
 


Also, stereopgraphic images, without glasses, can be viewed if you can cross your eyes to form the third, 3D, image in the centre. I've been able to do this since I was a kid.

edit on 10-5-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)


Here's one I made from a single regular photo using the skewing technique. I thought it might work and tried it out a few years ago. I'm not 100% sure the image will embed properly.....


edit on 10-5-2013 by BayesLike because: (no reason given)


Got it to work finally -- the real photo is much better quality but also much too big for posting. I added just a little skew to the one on the left starting at the water level. It's only a couple of degrees, hardly noticeable after re-trimming.

edit on 10-5-2013 by BayesLike because: (added photo)
edit on 10-5-2013 by BayesLike because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by BayesLike

Originally posted by winofiend
reply to post by BayesLike
 


The muscles, even if it were possible, would simply cease up.



I completely buy the idea there is an upper limit on muscle twitches -- hearts can get up to about 300 beats a minute in fibrillation, maybe more, and sustain that for a while (not long). But that's only about 5 twitches a second, 10 alternating eyes. So, with a little reflection about the rates required, which I assume is around 30, it doesn't appear likely.

Then again, maybe 5 flutters a second per eye is enough for the image fusion to occur for still objects?


If they could make 3D that operated in such low ranges then every old crt monitor and tv today would be 3D capable. you need at least 120hz for a monitor to be able to operate for 3D, 60hz each image.. and that is 60hz, where you see the flickering and waving on old CRT monitors.

The tech that uses no glasses today uses variations on lenticular screens. Which doesn't change the monitor pixel depth or anything, it simply allows you to have half screen width split into two fields, and the lenticular screen overlay directs the slight changes to your field of view. You can't see a lenticular 3D image very well if you're not within a 'sweet' spot for it.

They had lenticular 3D cards when I was a kid, which did the same thing. If you moved the card, the image would move.



Some 3D digital cameras and I think even a hand held game (3ds?) have a lenticular screens. You can buy lenticular screens for your iphone or compatible monitor that allow specific applications to use this feature.

Artificially stimulating nerve endings would not only be painful and ineffective but you'd never reach the required frequency to achieve 3D before the muscles would cease up. Think weight lifting, when you hit the breaking point, you cannot lift any more.

ahha this guy actually tried it out for real, or so it appears. Yikes, it looks incredibly uncomfortable for the poor girl





posted on May, 10 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Wow, that's a great find! Those facial twitches look really convincing, I think he really did try it too.

Thanks for the info on the lenticular grate -- I had thought the TV version that came out with this type of 3D without glasses had actually applied some depth. Lenses or prisms make a lot more sense and would probably be a lot cheaper too. At the expense of losing 1/2 the pixels. I wonder if that is part of the reason for the new quad density HD TVs coming out?

I'll check back tomorrow after I get a little sleep.... I'm supposed to head into work in 3 hours.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend
This is not the same as relaxing your eyes to allow them to see the image, this is going cross eyed.. As the middle image starts to merge, suddenly it jumps out at you, and you can look within the entire image, seeing everything in complete 3D. I love these things.


For some reason that image is inverted, the right side should be on the left and vice-versa, like this.




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
When I watch TV my mind puts 3D into what I see automatically. I've tried watching a 3D movie with glasses and it gave me headaches. Our minds can make things appear three dimensional. I talked this over with my daughter and she has the same ability and same problem with 3D movies. I don't know about the other daughter, never discussed it with her. I wonder how many people have this ability. I bet a lot of people do but they don't realize that others may not have this ability. The ones without it probably do not think anyone can see 3D on a screen.

Can anyone else here do that with their mind? Survey time.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Here's another example of the cross-eye 3-D effect. I had to swap the images around from the original stereopticon card. It's the Mount Washington "UFO," which demonstrates how it is actually a folded wooden ruler in a snowbank.




posted on May, 11 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Now that is truly surprising -- swapping the sides had a huge effect. Both looked 3d, but this one, with the swapped sides is cleaner and more understandable than the unswapped one. It's also easier to "synch" into the image -- for me it's almost immediate.

I had to stop using one of my desktops because it always went 3D on me, causing the desktop pattern to move every time I moved my head a little. It had a repetitive pattern which was just dense enough to cause that to happen.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Here's another example of the cross-eye 3-D effect. I had to swap the images around from the original stereopticon card. It's the Mount Washington "UFO," which demonstrates how it is actually a folded wooden ruler in a snowbank.




This one looks hollowed out to me, like looking into cave. That might be a lighting effect similar to what happens with photos of craters looking like a domes when the lighting is wrong. In some of the lunar photos, the dome effect goes away as soon as the photo is top-bottom inverted.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 


That image also had the images swapped. I suppose the apparatus they used to look at these inverted the images somehow, so when we look at the photos we are not seeing the effect they were supposed to show.

The swapped images look like this.




posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by BayesLike
 


That image also had the images swapped. I suppose the apparatus they used to look at these inverted the images somehow, so when we look at the photos we are not seeing the effect they were supposed to show.

The swapped images look like this.



This one actually looks better IMO. It's not hollowed out and there are no "bright fuzzy" rims when viewed with crossed eyes. The shadowing now looks normal too. Whichever this way is, swapped or not, I think it's the correct way.





new topics
top topics
 
4

log in

join