Eli5 why we can’t make cameras with 2 perspectives that alternates between to do 3D video

14 views
0

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

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.

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.

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.

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 DOES exist, but it never caught. It is pretty expensive compared to a 15$ active shutter pair of glasses.