djab
Distinguished
- Feb 18, 2009
- 121
- 0
- 18,680
[citation][nom]EnFoRceR22[/nom]Does anyone else here even realise its not even 3d. Its a 2d picture set to trick you into seeing a semi 3d image that looks horrible. Ill give a damn about this when it is truely a 3d picture instead of two 2d pictures. Though i do agree 3d is the future of graphic represintation, its also got to be 3d. I dont really see a 3d "tv" of any sort coming out for many years to come so ill see what 3d content is out there when the first 3d whatever they will be comes out.Djab your argument might make sense if there was a such thing as a 3d tv also color over black and white was actualy an inovation. two 2d pictures is just stupid. Just as stupid as this "3d" looks. Ill support progress when i see it.[/citation]
Your comment is interesting.
When you write about true 3d, are you referring to holograms? Which could in theory be seen from any angles.
As you said, current 3d tech use stereoscopy with two pictures.
With only this tech, changing the position of the viewer does not change the pictures (unless you use some head tracking technique ... for each viewer). This is in my opinion the only (main)drawback.
Concerning the number of pictures used (2) for stereo 3D ... you said it does not make true 3D ... how many eyes do you have?
If you do not have more than 2 eyes 😉 , 2 pictures should be enough (1 per eye) to create some 3D effect.
ps: thinking about it, may be some thing also missing in stereo 3d is the fact that in reality, with only one eye, focussing on things at a particular plan makes things on the other plan blurry. (I do not know technical terms for that 😉 )
That may be why some people can not see the 3D with current stereo 3d tech.
Your comment is interesting.
When you write about true 3d, are you referring to holograms? Which could in theory be seen from any angles.
As you said, current 3d tech use stereoscopy with two pictures.
With only this tech, changing the position of the viewer does not change the pictures (unless you use some head tracking technique ... for each viewer). This is in my opinion the only (main)drawback.
Concerning the number of pictures used (2) for stereo 3D ... you said it does not make true 3D ... how many eyes do you have?
If you do not have more than 2 eyes 😉 , 2 pictures should be enough (1 per eye) to create some 3D effect.
ps: thinking about it, may be some thing also missing in stereo 3d is the fact that in reality, with only one eye, focussing on things at a particular plan makes things on the other plan blurry. (I do not know technical terms for that 😉 )
That may be why some people can not see the 3D with current stereo 3d tech.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram