This might be a stupid idea, but without a microscope, it seems feasible, imagine having two cameras recording, and on your screen at home we alternate between the cameras every frame to make 3D video, this is almost what’s already happening in our eyes so why not in media?
EDIT: I think I phrased myself poorly, I don’t mean a screen that sends two images or why cameras are this and that, I mean footage that gives one frame from one camera, and the next frame from the second camera, alternating back and forth to make our eyes mens it together into a 3D picture
In: 0
Sounds extremely trippy. You need a way to show one camera to one eye and the other camera to the other eye. This can be done on a regular screen with the old style of 3d glasses, but people don’t really care to do that.
We can do that and you used to be able to buy cameras and tvs made to do that. I don’t think there are widely available anymore, as they apparently were don’t a financial success. I have a 3d TV uses polarization to split the two images, but there isn’t a lot of content that takes advantage of it.
The problem is not the cameras. 3D movies are filmed using 2 cameras to capture images as though it is viewed through our eyes.
The problem is that when the images are displayed. One image has to go in the right eye and the other into the left eye for our brains to perceive it as 3D. This can be solved in a controlled environment like a cinema but not so easy in other environments unless we wear headsets.
The problem isn’t the recording or even the broadcasting. The problem is the projection or display.
It DOES exist, but it never caught. It is pretty expensive compared to a 15$ active shutter pair of glasses.
This is not a technology problem – 3D movies are shot with 2 cameras to get the view of the left and right eye. We even had the technology to show 3D movies (outside of cinemas) with TVs that use shutter glasses or polarization filters to be used with polarization glasses. The simple fact is that customers didn’t buy them and they thus weren’t viable from a business standpoint.
It was done on some 3D TVs and 3D games/monitors
They had expensive active glasses that blocked the view from one eye then the other. It requires the source support double the frame rate(120 fps to see 60 fps)
Turns out 3D content didn’t take off for home use. The required equipment was too expensive (new high end TVs) and the media available was limited, gimmicky, and didn’t expand because not many people got the TVs
The overall cheaper option is definitely polarization which is what they do in movie theaters there days. It makes the screen more expensive but does come with super expensive glasses
Because no one cares about 3D. Its been pushed and failed in the theater and home media marketplace so many time I’ve lost count.
No one is going to invest in the extra expense to design and manufacture 3D home media when it has already failed to make any inroads in the marketplace multiple times.
We can see in 3D without glasses. It’s called Cross-Eye 3D. It’s pretty impressive. Take a look at this video. Watch it in full screen mode.
[3D Cross-Eye Video.](https://youtu.be/QzyjLtzPDNw)
>I think I phrased myself poorly, I don’t mean a screen that sends two images or why cameras are this and that, I mean footage that gives one frame from one camera, and the next frame from the second camera, alternating back and forth to make our eyes mens it together into a 3D picture
That’s now how we see in 3D. We see 3D because our left eye sees a different image than our right eye:
Hold your finger in front of your nose. Close your left eye; your right eye sees the finger to the left. Now close your right eye; your left eye sees the finger on the right. Now open both eyes; if you focus on the finger, you can resolve it as *one* image that is a composite of the two independent images that are being seen *at the same time*.
Your proposed alternating-footage doesn’t do this. You need to find a way so that your left eye sees only one set of images while your right eye only sees the other. If both eyes see the same image, the 3D effect is lost. Alternating the images across each frame will only cause a strobing effect, which is liable to induce a migraine more than an illusion of 3D.
Latest Answers