murror

Last time we saw a film that needed 3D glasses, we kept two pairs to convert into 2D glasses to enhance future movie experiences.

3D is stupid anyway. You are trying to display twice as much data in the same area, which means your going to get a lower resolution image. It is effectively half scaling the clarity for this "trick". Less fidelity isn't really worth it. The only way you can solve that is to have 2 separate video signals piped directly to the eye. You could pull something like this off, instead of the normal 3d glasses, you would have a clear lens, the normal image on the screen, and the offset image beamed directly into your other eye . This way, you would get no loss of clarity. Perhaps, though, the movie version doesn't suffer this loss in clarity, I don't know the properties of different polorizations of light. But I know as far as pixels are concerned, if you have 1 million and try to do 2 things with them, you effectively only have half.

I wont argue your point, but I can say for sure the extra depth information gained by using two eyes offsets the resolution loss to some degree.

Ya, I did notice the extra information was nice in a certain way. I remember in avatar, the simple action of walking down a corridor had more depth because of the...well, perceived depth. I like the idea of 3d, I just don't want to compromise! Short of goofy headsets, or retinal scanners, I don't think my slightly unreasonable need for fidelity can be realized. That said, has any one done any 3d glasses gaming? My card supports it, in theory, but it is ancient and I don't want it to explode.

>> ^deathcow:

I wont argue your point, but I can say for sure the extra depth information gained by using two eyes offsets the resolution loss to some degree.

I have never seen any 3D TV experience that "worked" for me. When its 1080P per eye at 60 fps per eye, we'll be there.

My experience comes from using telescopes. Even though there is one lens, casting one image cone, when you use a binoviewer several things happen. 1) everything looks bigger, though its the same size.. this is reported over and over again by people. 2) low contrast high resolution details are easier to see, even though its the same image per eye. 3) problems you have with one eye are diminished, especially floaters in your eyes just fade away.

Now they are coming out with 3D TV which require no glasses at all, but unless they can pump the signal rate up it still will fall short for me.

@deathcow

O wow, that is all really interesting! Now that you mention it, I am a glasses wearing fellow and have to take regular eye exams. My left eye, shes a bad one, basically legally blind, all she can see is the big E. Right eye, however, sees pretty well, but not perfect. But, for whatever reason, when I use both eyes I get a better score than the highest eye. In other words, my nearly blind eye can still help my much better eye see the world more clearly. Or more accurately, the brain is able to do some magic with more information even if that information is badly corrupted. I hadn't considered that "feels larger" thing, though, for TVs that most likely won't apply because you are seeing it with both eyes already (albit 2 perspectives of one perspective). Even so, I think that is really neat! I remember the old days of looking through microscopes and could definitely remember that "smaller" feeling.

So maybe there is some fine balance that could be struck between pure fidelity and depth fidelity. Perhaps you don't have to dedicate 50/50 to each perspective (and lower the overall fidelity by half), perhaps you can get away with only showing 80% of one perspective of the native resolution and 20% of the other. Then every ones brain will be doing what my brain is doing for me, filling in the gaps and still presenting a 3d image before your minds eye. Or perhaps that will just give people headaches.

*learn

Adding video to channels (Learn) - requested by messenger.