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
>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