PDA

View Full Version : "3D" pictures - do they work for you?



JohnD
2009-Jan-28, 05:39 PM
New pic on the Mars Rover site, another "3D" one, in pink and green.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20090122a/site_B90_1614_navcam_CYP_A_br.jpg

I bought some 3D specs so I could see these in all their glory - and nix!
Not just this one; any 3D pic with that method.
I cant see any 3D effect at all.
What's the technique, if any?

John

dhd40
2009-Jan-28, 06:13 PM
New pic on the Mars Rover site, another "3D" one, in pink and green.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20090122a/site_B90_1614_navcam_CYP_A_br.jpg

I bought some 3D specs so I could see these in all their glory - and nix!
Not just this one; any 3D pic with that method.
I cant see any 3D effect at all.
What's the technique, if any?

John

I have similar problems, although I own 8 different 3D specs. My experience is that there are some pictures which cantīt be seen "3D" even if you use the correct colour filters. Below are two pictures (both from some NASA sites which Iīve forgotten to notice). They both have the same colour combination (as far as I can tell), still they present an extremely different 3D-view (using red-cyan-specs)

I donīt know the reason for this

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-28, 06:18 PM
I have similar problems, although I own 8 different 3D specs...
One of these days I'm going to make or gain access to the specs.
But; as far as 3D is concerned, I've done my own informal sampling of people with different levels of being able to see 3D in those "magic eye" type of images.
What I found is that the more even thier prescription is between eyes, the easier it is to see.

I'm guessing the same is with any dual-eye 3D effect (including the colored lenses).

In summary: One eye stronger than the other.

Ilya
2009-Jan-28, 08:08 PM
Well, I am a counterexample to this. My eyes are extremely different -- one is moderately nearsighted, the other is very farsighted (and almost uncorrectable with glasses), -- yet I have no trouble at all with 3-D pictures.

mugaliens
2009-Jan-28, 08:44 PM
We'll have true 3D capability when we have 120 hz refresh rates, 60 hz for each eye, and goggles plugged via USB which alternatingly allow the right image to go through the right goggle, and the left to go through the left.

Oh, wait! We've had that technology since 1982....

dhd40
2009-Jan-29, 01:23 PM
Well, I am a counterexample to this. My eyes are extremely different -- one is moderately nearsighted, the other is very farsighted (and almost uncorrectable with glasses), -- yet I have no trouble at all with 3-D pictures.

You donīt have troubles with the left picture in my post #2?

Ilya
2009-Jan-29, 02:12 PM
You donīt have troubles with the left picture in my post #2?

I have no 3-D glasses handy, but when I get some I will check.

jt-3d
2009-Jan-29, 04:34 PM
You donīt have troubles with the left picture in my post #2?

Basicly it's *** (apollogies but the term fits), (oh i see the filters have filtered me). Ok so it's not good (an expression which fails to capture my real opinion). If you get right up to it you can get some 3d out of it but then you get woozy when you pull away and take your glasses off. Just delete it. Some people should not try to make 3d stuff. Whoever made that abomination falls into that category.

dhd40
2009-Jan-29, 05:52 PM
Basicly it's *** (apollogies but the term fits), (oh i see the filters have filtered me). Ok so it's not good (an expression which fails to capture my real opinion). If you get right up to it you can get some 3d out of it but then you get woozy when you pull away and take your glasses off. Just delete it. Some people should not try to make 3d stuff. Whoever made that abomination falls into that category.

good to hear that itīs ***, so I donīt have to blame my eyes