| Author | Message | ||
     Larry Elie Rating: N/A |
Just for some 'cultural' interest. DVD's are not HDTV. They are NTSC or PAL. However, as early as next year, REAL HDTV DVD's, Blu-Ray's, will hit the market. 1080i, 27Gb/side, 36 Mb/sec, etc... That would make a nice 3D display possible. http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020222S0020 | ||
| Christoph Bungert (Admin) Rating: N/A |
My understanding of the current HDTV systems is that they present the same or more problems for 3D as PAL/NTSC did, just on a higher resolution level. The refresh rate is the same: too low. HDTV sets are even more likely to have digital stuff in it which destroys the stereo-information (by de-interlacing) and/or the sync (by buffering). There are even progressive HDTV formats which should prove unusable for stereo. Christoph | ||
| Larry Elie Rating: N/A |
Yes, there is de-interlacing and buffering available, but mostly at the lower resolutions. 1080i is fully interlaced. Anything you could do NTSC, 1080i will do, as long as you can turn off the other bells and whistles. AND... data is data; since the bandweidth is so high, one could of course double the frame rate, and still get by. Yes, I'm looking at the standards and seeing what can be done. There a 3 video cards (Phillips chip set) that capture HDTV streams. I'm buying one. I want to experiment. Larry Elie | ||
| AllanSilliphant Rating: N/A |
The advanced Anachrome color anaglyph system is the best bet for broadcast HDTV or Blu-ray DVD. We recently did tests for Warners from HI-DEF masters on "House of Wax" "Kiss Me Kate" and are hoping to test for "Space Station 3D". The Anachrome process is largely free from severe retinal rivalry because you see all 3 RGB colors through the CYAN tinted filter.Ordinary anaglyph shows only blue and green through that filter. Prior art was trying to use anaglyph filters for total exclusion of the oposite vector...That is ok for black & white but is awful with color. (witness crappy look of "Spy Kids" Anachrome glasses also have a slight diopter correction which sharpens the red view and increases contrast ratio very dramatically. Still Anchrome images look almost the same as flate , without glasses. Sample images at www.anachrome.com | ||
| ronnieMervis Rating: N/A |
i have said this, over and over, for months.....simple, anaglyph 3d, looks very good ,on HDTV.i have a BensLens, my son, a DP in Hollywood, made some adjustments to it. as Ben did not design it for video. but it works for video!!!! i am fowarding to Ben some photos we took of the adjustment we made on the lens. we then hooked the BensLens to a Sony trv900 3ccd camcorder. i have shot lots of anaglyph 3d footage with it. when i play the anaglyph footage on my HDTV 42 inch Plasma screen i put on the red and blue paper glasses. i then adjust the color , brightness, and sharpness of the HD Pasma tv till the anaglyph 3d looks best to me.the Plasma has very good color , brightness ,and sharpness and is easy to adjust all the settings to max the 3d effect of simple anaglyph. its just a very simple fact anaglyph looks great on HDTV!!!!!! | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
I'd also like to show off my forever-improving, "special" shade-corrected anaglyph technique that looks great on an LCD TV, with little to no retinal rivalry at all. An HD version would just look better, yet ;-) I have (again) been playing around with anaglyph MPEG's, and am starting to upload 16:9 (widescreen) web versions... more to come soon... made with cheap cams, and not high resolution, of course, but the anaglyph technique can still be demonstrated: http://www.puppetkites.net/ Without getting carried away with details here, I am also experimenting with "fuzzing out" the frame borders to reduce the severity of window violations on a monitor, which is sometimes a necessary evil from shifting the stereo window to avoid ghosting artifacts caused from MPEG compression. I also recently made a little demo (non-commercial, "educational") page that shows short samples of the original Spy Kids 3D DVD compared directly to my technique, re-made by using the 2D version for the left perspective and the anaglyph version with the red left channel deleted for the right perspective, then converted to anaglyph using my method: http://www.puppetkites.net/comanamoviedemos/SK3D.htm There's nothing secret or mysterious about my method... it just involves a lot of tweaking of the colors until I get a color combination that looks good to me that has no (or a minimal amount of) retinal rivalry... PKK | ||
| RonnieMervis Rating: N/A |
PKK its eaven simpler then that on a HDTV Plasma monitor. i take my raw anaglyph footage shot with a Benslens and a Sony trv900 3ccd camcorder. run a S VIDEO cable from the camcorder to the HDTV monitor......using the HDTV remote control hand set slide the color,brightness and sharpness to the level thats gives the best 3d to ones own view. the inate, very good color properties of a 3ccd camcorder(there are several 3ccd camcorders under $600 US dollars) and the amazing color and sharpness of a new Plasma HDTV. make for excellent 3d from the simplest anaglyph video footage. again its very, very simple.......however you need to see it on a HDTV Plasma screen to see how simple anaglyph 3d looks so good. | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
I don't mean to take anything away from what you are doing. The more the merrier... but I just had to add another explanation. I decided to put it in a more appropriate thread, called: "Working For The Perfect Anaglyph". PKK | ||
| Kate Addo Rating: N/A |
I recently made my own 6' screen for my older resolution sony projector. I have the projector hooked up to my satellite tv, dvd, and vcr; through laser lite to the projector across the room. The screen building was a long process of making the frame, finding good light-blocking curtain backing material, and applying, finally, 27 coats of paint, but I finally got it perfect. (painted it with silver and pearl acrylic paints, mixed together with a drying inhibitor to let it flatten nicely without roller marks) When I first viewed the tv on the screen I was amased that it almost looked 3D, so I tried an old, bad pair of cardboard 3D glasses,(from an old 3D Body Image pc program my son used to have) and was WOWED by the images and depth I was seeing. Was pretty proud of myself at that point... *smile* Now, as it is, it looks great alone, and even better with the anaglyph type glasses, but the retinal rivalry is almost unbearable with the addition of the ghosting effect that these horrible old cardboard glasses create. Can anyone tell me which anaglyph glasses would be the best to use that wouldn't give the unpleasant ghosting and retinal rivalry? I want to purchase about 4 pairs of good anaglyph glasses so my whole family can view my 'masterpiece' silver screen in 3D, so I want to get good ones. Any links here would be great, and also any advice about the best type of viewing glasses would be reallllly appreciated. *smile* I'm really new at this. Thanks =) | ||
| ronnieMervis Rating: N/A |
no anaglyph glasses in the world will take away gosting..... if the videographer didn't converge the images well enough......retinal rivaly?.....you can overcome most of that by adjusting your color, brightness ,sharpness on your projector...if your projector is older you might not be able to do much of this adjusting....and will continue having problems......the newer projectors with DLPs make simple anaglyph look amazing, because you can adjust ,color , brightness,and sharpness, in so fineite a way.......but you might have to spend $2500 on a good DLP and up to get what you want.........again buy a BensLens and shoot your own anaglyph video. you can control the convergence,and retinal rivaly yourself | ||
| ronnieMervis Rating: N/A |
no anaglyph glasses in the world will take away gosting..... if the videographer didn't converge the images well enough......retinal rivaly?.....you can overcome most of that by adjusting your color, brightness ,sharpness on your projector...if your projector is older you might not be able to do much of this adjusting....and will continue having problems......the newer projectors with DLPs make simple anaglyph look amazing, because you can adjust ,color , brightness,and sharpness, in so fineite a way.......but you might have to spend $2500 on a good DLP and up to get what you want.........again buy a BensLens and shoot your own anaglyph video. you can control the convergence,and retinal rivaly yourself | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
Kate, I think I would try a pure white screen (or wall) for anaglyphs. There are many things that can cause ghosting, but the one way to insure the best possible image is by using the VGA or DVI connector from a computer. To say it another way, S-Video and component RGB cable will most definitely cause ghosting, sometimes severely. Sadly, there are other things than can also cause ghosting even if you _do_ use VGA or DVI connectors from a computer, so all you can do is start eliminating the possibilities, one by one. S-Video and RGB connectors are possibly the worst cause, so I'd eliminate that problem first. Next, video compression, like MPEG (DVD) can cause ghosting. Yes, anaglyph glasses can cause some ghosting. Red-blue glasses seem to cause the least amount, but they don't give you the best colors... red-cyan glasses do... but they will (usually) also cause a bit of ghosting through the cyan lens. Now, retinal rivalry is a whole different demon. Any traditional anaglyph that only uses the red channel from the left image and the green and blue channels from the right image will cause retinal rivalry, but retinal rivalry is actually not caused by differences in colors, but by differences in shades (light and dark). It is a long story that I have spent years troubleshooting, but the only way to totally remove retinal rivalry is to "shade correct" the images. This is a complex thing to do well, but I can show you the tools that can do it: http://www.puppetkites.net/virtualdub3d.htm At this time, this is not possible to do with on-the-fly processing, but Peter Wimmer has come close, and I think he's still trying to perfect the process. Email him and ask him about his "Optimized" view in his Stereoscopic Player software: http://mitglied.lycos.de/stereo3d/ Hope this helps, P. K. Kid Non-commercial stereoscopic 3D video: (All G-Rated) http://www.puppetkites.net | ||
| Peter Wimmer Rating: N/A |
Regarding optimized anaglpyh mode in Stereoscopic Player: Since it's still under development, it's only available in developer mode, which can be enabled by pressing Ctrl+Alt+D. Once you've selected the optimized anaglpyh viewing method, you can adjust it by pressing Ctrl+Alt+A. In the last weeks, I've read quite a lot of recommendations for the BensLens, so I want to tell my optinion of such a device: Don't use it, use two DV cameras or the Nu-View instead! Here are my reasons: * The DV video system uses 4:2:0 color-subsampling, therefore reducing the color resolution to a quarter of the original resolution. Since the 3D effect is stored in the color information, this is really bad (with analog systems, it's even worse). * Sooner or later, you'll want to view your recordings in full color using shutterglasses, polarized projection or an autostereo display. If you record directly in anaglpyh format, you'll never be able to do this. When I started shooting 3D, I also used anglyph glasses only, but in the meantime, I use both shutterglasses and a passive projection system. Thank goodness, I've stored all my original recordings in side-by-side or over/under format, but never in anaglyph! * Anaglyph created during recording will always suffer from retinal rivalry and you've got no chance to correct it. This is just my point of view. I'm neither related with the manufactorer of the Nu-View nor with the manufacturer of the BensLens. To be fair, I have to mention that the Nu-View also has lot's of severe disadvantages! If you can afford it, a dual camera rig is the best solution. | ||
| ronmervis@earthlink.net Rating: N/A |
sorry Peter i think you are wrong...see if you understand this......i have a BebsLens i shoot lots of 3d anaglyph footage with it. i have a Sony TRV 900 3ccd camcorder. the 3d effect is bad when shown on a standard NTSC crt television monitor. however if you hook up the camcorder to a PLASMA HDTV monitor with 1024 or better rez and play the 3d anaglyph footage the anaglyph video looks amazing. you have to adjust the color ,brightness, tint ,and sharpness,using the HDTV remote handset ,while wareing the red/blue glasses to get the best 3d effect. even better i can set my color on my Poloroid DVD maker. then i play it on a new Samsung Hipervision HDTV Upconverter DVD player($250 GoodGuys & BestBuy) with the brand new Faroudja video HD chipset that upconverts my standard anaglyph DVD i shot with my Sony 3ccd camcorder and BensLens,to real HD.now ,that makes my origional anaglyph footage, 4 times sharper ,more full of rich super color,tint, and brightness, on a new , 1 billion color, 1024 + rez, HDTV PLASMA HDTV......until you experience this you just, cant judge how great simple anaglyph can look........PLASMA HD ,is, the future of, anaglyph 3d, i just wish i could show you all.....until you get the chance....to see for youselves.....words just dont discribe how good it looks!!!!! | ||
| ronmervis@earthlink.net Rating: N/A |
sorry for the typo.in my secound sentence i typed BebsLens....i ment BensLens.....sorry!! | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
The greatest things to me about the internet are sharing ideas and learning from other people. I always question everything I do... and think of ways to make what I do better and better. I can _always_ improve everything that I do. The biggest problem with red/cyan color anaglyphs (IMHO) is the retinal rivalry caused by shade differences. The best example of this is dealing with the color red. If you place a red filter over a color scene, it will _delete_ the color red, and only white will remain. If you place a cyan filter over that same image, it will turn that same red color to very dark hue... in many cases, almost black or dark purple. This is the worst case of retinal rivalry, but some other colors will do the same thing to different degrees... One eye sees a very light (shade) object and the other eye sees a very dark (shade) object. This problem is a very serious one, and IMHO, is the main reason that traditional anaglyph processes do not work successfully, resulting in headaches and complaints, and ultimately, total disrespect for the medium. My main goal is to eliminate this problem. I do it by using a combination of techniques during editing, including changing the problem color(s) (like red) in _both images_ before the red and cyan anaglyph filters are applied, desaturating the problem color(s) (like red) in _both images_ before the anaglyph filters are applied, and grayscaling the left image before the anaglyph filters are applied. Many times, this process can take as many as 3 color filters, each one doing a different task to each color. I use software filters (VirtualDub) to achieve this goal, but in theory the same principals might be able to be applied to hardware solutions... maybe... or maybe not... and if so, probably not easily. Somehow, similar tasks and results as I mentioned would have to happen. IMHO, the best way to understand this concept is to see the instructions (I just told them) and then _see_ the results. If you do not see the results, it is only a theory. Here are my results: My method compared directly to the original Spy Kids 3D movie: http://www.puppetkites.net/comanamoviedemos/SK3D.htm Some of my "home videos" using my anaglyph method: http://www.puppetkites.net/anaglyph.htm Peter Wimmer's "Optimized" anaglyph view works in a somewhat similar way, but is used for on-the-fly viewing of existing movies, and not for scene-by-scene anaglyph conversion. A red and cyan filter placed in front of a video adapter with no additional filters would produce a "traditional" anaglyph, not a shade-corrected or "optimized" analgyph. TV or monitor adjustments are only able to make generalized adjustments to the overall anaglyph. This, in no way, is capable of producing perfect "shade corrected" or "optimized" anaglyphs. PKK | ||
| Peter Wimmer Rating: N/A |
Well, I didn't say that anaglyphs are bad, and in fact I work myself on anaglyhp algorithms and use anaglyphs quite often. I just said that other methods are better. I've already seen lots of anaglyphs, including high-def projections, but non of them excels polarized projection or shutterglasses. My point was that anaglyph recordings limits your possiblity to show your recordings in the future, for example you might want to show your videos on a stereo congress using polarized projection some day. Anyway, it is incontestable that the DV systems uses color subsampling, reducing sharpness dramatically. Of course you can sharpen the image later on, but this will not bring back details lost during recording - the image just looks better, but doesn't show more details. I don't want to start a dispute here. I you like the BensLens, use it! It certainly has andvantages, the most important one is simplicity, which is quite important if you don't want to spend hours on postprocessing, editing and building an advanced viewing system. | ||
| Allan Silliphant Rating: N/A |
In many respects I agree with Puppet Kite Kid(I guess it is that silly handle he uses the bugs me) but much of what he's says fits what we've learned in developing Anachrome (advance anaglyph) method. A quick primer: Polaroid images are usually shot with the camera lenses too far apart. It is next to impossible to get good anaglyph from wide spacing. It is narrow mindedness than requires all the red to be filtered out of the blue/green right image. Leave in a little red and most retinal rivalry gooes away. The overlay must be acheived in post, with about 6 fixes. Converging the angle of the lenses in usual bad in the shoot phase. Grey scale detail must be preserved in the red image. Anachrome looks so good on our "Kiss Me Kate" test, partially because the MGM rig was closely spaced. We recently did a mastering test for "Little Magician" which looks good after fixing 161,000+ frames! Check out the great Anachrome demo images on our URL.www.anachrome.com They look best with our plastic diopter correct glasses! | ||
| clyde Rating: N/A |
hmm.. something dosnt make sense here.. allan says "The Anachrome process is largely free from severe retinal rivalry because you see all 3 RGB colors through the CYAN tinted filter.Ordinary anaglyph shows only blue and green through that filter. " Now im stumped! granted that color rivalry will be reduced a great deal, but then what about color Ghosting? Put simply.. if you leave in a bit of red in the cyan side it is going to ghost isnt it? Its akin to using a "bad" cyan filter thats leaking red. Please enlighten me on this.. Regards Clyde | ||
| Cyberben3d Rating: N/A |
Yes you can see red through the cyan filter on Anachrome glasses, and yes it causes ghosting. The difference when compared to paper glasses is pretty stark in my opinion. On the other hand I've never seen good filters on anything but paper glasses. And on the other other hand my grandfather, who is 79, swears that the Anachrome glasses are much easier for him to use than the paper ones. He says the paper ones make his left eye tired. Not making it up... But they definitely aren't for me. They make me feel like I'm wearing someone's prescription glasses and that cyan filter drives me nuts. I think I know what my grandfather is getting for christmas... :D | ||
| Allan Silliphant Rating: N/A |
Regarding the red that you're supposed to see through the cyan filter with Anachrome glasses. Anachrome video and stills try to work within an envelope of contrast, pixel off-set, and certain detailing of the images as to rotation, magnification, and saturation. When we process Anachrome we're not trying to acheive the same perspective as polaroid, or discrete optical viewers can deliver. Anachrome is alway shot with about 40% less stereo space, sometimes as little as a third of normal base. Don't judge Anachrome glasses by how they show radical, or out of whack images. Look at the picture shot for the glasses, or the videos. a little red must be seen through the cyan to allow the brain to consider an object to be redish. If it is black in one eye, and only "lighter" through the largely "monochromatic" red filter, you get the horrendous retinal rivalry everybody hates. Take the time, go to www.anachrome.com and check out some of the 260 or so images there. Anachrome is virually full-color, and full saturation. We think 3D is cool, but it is trumped by good color. Anachromes look pretty good without glasses, and tend to develope texture and roundness, rather than trying to poke the viewer in the eye. If you'd see what Anachrome did for "Kiss Me Kate" you'd certainly get my point. So use paper glasses for radical perspective, but try to see the value of Anachrome with it full range color and "View-master" approach to depth. | ||
| clyde Rating: N/A |
...."Look at the picture shot for the glasses, or the videos. a little red must be seen through the cyan to allow the brain to consider an object to be redish. If it is black in one eye, and only "lighter" through the largely "monochromatic" red filter, you get the horrendous retinal rivalry everybody hates." I think what iM trying to say that would contradict the above statement is that your not going to get proper color *extinction* if you let red seep through the cyan lens. This is going to cause ghosting. What you want to do to make a red object appear somewhat red say for example the pepsi logo, is to do that in pre-processing! You have to substitute the red for a darker or more 'earthy' shade. seperate treatement needs to go for skin tones etc. Then you drop the red component to virtually nill (ok keep 5%) in the cyan side and play with the *Gamma* settings to match the red side with the right side. you need to match "shades" or greyscale levels to kill retinal rivalry not the actual colors itself. (note gamma and brightness are not really the same) As for shooting with minimal stereo base, Yes thats the basis for good stereo... ALWAYS!  Cheers Clyde | ||
| clyde Rating: N/A |
P.s I forgot to give credit where due.. most of this i learned from PKK's experiments which are explained above. Clyde | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
I will try my hardest to avoid a "PKK vs Anachrome" debate, so let's really get "wowed" by combining the two ;-) Alan, I will be waiting for my check in the mail ;-) ;-) Look at this image of mine with Anachrome glasses: http://www.puppetkites.net/thestereoscope_A_L.jpg Ah... pure perfection ;-) Is it the glasses or my conversion that *works*... or both??? My goal at this time is to keep working on totally eliminating ghosting... and it's not easy, but I'm getting better and better at it :-) In fact, my last few projects seem to work very well with the Anachrome glasses: http://www.puppetkites.net/anaglyph.htm Ghosting is always "a bad thing", no matter what glasses you use :-) PKK | ||
| Allan Silliphant Rating: N/A |
Hi PKK, and all! Your image "the stereoscope" is way cool. If anything it is too embedded! But, I agree we are both making serious progress. Check out the 3D stills of the Sony HDR FX-1 on my site. We are going to buy some of these and make a dual camera rig right away, and try to make a split lens system for one of the cameras working alone. This camera will probably be the model T of 3D video! Folks, I met PK in Portland at the NSA and he's actually very pleasant!!! I'm being interviewed on Thursday on video for the upcoming DVD of my 3D hit, from the '70s, "The Stewardesses". I shot it with only a 43mm stereo base, so it ought to be easy to anaglyph convert. The film will be out in perhaps 3 months! Allan Silliphant | ||
| M.H. Rating: N/A |
From the Sony HDR FX-1 specification is clear that it does not support progressive recoroding. This strongly limits its seriouse use for stereo. It is a pitty becouse the LANC can give good multiple camera sync ... | ||
| Peter Wimmer Rating: N/A |
I'm not that euphoric about the Sony HDR FX-1. It's too expensive and too bulky for amateur use. For professional 3D shooting, the interlaced scanning mode and the limited horizontal resolution is unacceptable, it's better to lend two really professional cameras. Of course the future belongs to HDV (or some other disc- or memory-based HDTV standard). 720p would be better than 1080i. Best would be 1080p, but as far as I know, 1080p is still reserved for very expensive cameras. We can expect other companys to release their HDV/HDTV products in 2005, maybe the ideal camcorder for amateurs is among them. I will definitly not buy the Sony HDR FX-1 but wait for a cheaper and handier one... | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
Hey, Alan, can you tell us about the syncing device you are using for your camcorders? I glanced at it briefly in Portland, but didn't take the time to really figure it out. Also, I agree with the others about progressive scan. It looks like we are right at the crossroads for progressive camcorders, and the near future might offer exciting equipment. That would eliminate the dreadful deinterlacing challenge. I would at least look for camcorders that can do 24p, 30p _and_ 60i (read on :-). OTOH, for anyone who needs help deinterlacing dual interlaced footage for 3D, I think I've got it perfected about as good as possible. It's not exactly rocket science, but there's a few tricks to it. You do not want to discard fields to get the job done, as you are just throwing away half the footage. You really need Adobe After Effects to do it right, although there *may* be other software that can do it. Let me know if you need help or advice ...or let's hear about the way you (or others) do it, if you have your own method :-) One other thing... since the progressive camcorders have hit the market, I see more and more debates about progressive scan shooting, and surprisingly, many people do not prefer it over interlaced footage. I have always stated that interlaced footage is "smoother", and I think that is common knowledge, but the real video geeks have a bunch of reasons to dislike it, I guess... so it may not be for everyone. Maybe there is another side to this coin, and we shouldn't throw away our deinterlacing tools just yet, at least not until we are shooting 60p, and that could be a while :-) I guess it's not over until the fat lady sings ;-) P. K. Kid Non-commercial stereoscopic 3D movies: (All G-Rated) http://www.puppetkites.net | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
Has anyone tried JVC's JY-HD10U?: http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL101394 That's got progressive scan, including 60p, along with 60i, and a decent price tag. How can you sync two of these??? Are we even able to buy equipment that can play 60p? I can't even do that on my *fast* computer, and dual 60p (full rez paired 60fps 3D) is totally out of the question :-) It would still be great to use as a source, though, to convert to other formats, i.e., it's the progressive *equivalent* of 60i. PKK | ||
| M.H. Rating: N/A |
PPK: I had done a lot of experiments with JY-HD ... GRD-HD1 is an cheper equivalent working almost identical ... They do not give you a sync connector, but progressive data recorded in 60p mode synced by shift to 120/s gives perfect result. With proper codec you can play the result as 60 fps at NTSC/eye resolution ins tereo on 2.6 GHz PC ... But you can downgrade the results to 30 fps if you want ... | ||
| Allan Silliphant Rating: N/A |
Hi PKK, and all. I'n planning to go to Japan and get a matched (frame position) pair to evaluate. 3 chips are critical to get the color space needed for 3D video. My GRDHD-1 paired rig is good in some respects but the color sucks...inky looking, way too much black in each frame, and little chroma. I have stereo pictures of the HDR FX-1 on my www.anachrome.com site. They're conversions, but look fairly good. There is no getting around the need for 3 chips in an HD camcorder.I plan to go to Japan in December to find two with the same framing position. At least the lens is claimed to be detachable. This will allow single camera use for hobbists, if a dual lens can be made. First thing is to see if the color is any good. My NTSC Panasonic rig is 3 chip interlaced and looks great on DV playback on a Trinitron monitor. It looks best, of course, playing out of our system as an AVI file on computer monitor. We have a dual processor 3 gig. running Matrox RXT 100. Lens seperation is so critical with anaglyph. One of our single chip rigs goes down to 1.6 inches and looks wonderful if the lighting is right. Anaglyph is all about lens spacing and being parrellel rather than towed in. I'm having good luck with getting more RED into everything. You just have to balance it exactly at all times. Check out the "Spy Kids 3D" poster side by side Anachrome vrs. Rodriguez Glasses, on our site. Free Anachrome glasses to anybody who posts here at least 3 times in the last month. I know some people don't understand why we let so much RED slip bye. It really helps to allow the mind to see all the "shoulder colors". When you space the lenses close and don't toe-in the laterals stay pretty level. Then you fix EVERYTHING, FRAME by FRAME in post. With tight overlay, the thin CYAN filter cuts out enough RED to control ghosting while not murdering the red in the right eye. Actually you see a different part of the RED information in the right eye than in the bald "Red on Red" you get through a RED filter. The two aspects of Red are easily, then blended in your visual cortex. It works, you should check out the glasses and our images, not yours in judging Anachrome performance. Drop me and e-mail if you're a regular here to get FREE glasses. Allan S. | ||
| Peter Wimmer Rating: N/A |
> 3 chips are critical to get the color space needed for 3D video You are right that images of 3 CCD cameras look much better than one-chip cameras, however, the aditional color information you get with 3 CCDs is almost useless since the 4:2:0 colorsubsampling used by the MPEG compression throws away 75% (!!!) of the color information. 3 CCDs are better because they avoid color artefacts in high-frequency parts of the image (small details, sharp edges) and are generally better suited for lowlight conditions. Single CCDs cameras actually work great, just thing about digital still cameras! All of them use only one CCD or CMOS chip. | ||
| M.H. Rating: N/A |
They key problem with 1 CCD camera are light condition. For good looking stereo scenes you need deep field of foused area scene = as small daipragm as possible. But this needs good lighting conditions or long exposure time = complex lighting problems or slow scenes recording ... Both JY-HD and GRD-HD require unfortunately good lighting to produce good colors :-( ... All this is a problem when shooting inside building on undeground areas ... And I do not speak about problems related to e.g. NuView using with such cameras = additional 60% light lose ... | ||
| Joe Experimenting Rating: N/A |
Can I use the StereoPhoto Maker V2.20 to make an Anachrome JPG from two JPG files? Any suggestions on the best software to automatically Anachrome hi-res JPG files? | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
I bought Mirachrome (a close range version of Anachrome) glasses couple of weeks ago but frankly, I'm disappointed. There's so much hype about "7 times better acuity", "detail" etc. but in reality all you get is severe red ghosting causing bluriness . This bluriness is far worse than overhyped retinal rivalry of Spy Kids 3D glasses. I get much better and much sharper view using SK3D glasses even on pictures supposed to look good with Anachrome. I guess the recipe for making good Anachrome images is "make both views almost the same so it doesn't ghost even without glasses" (that is, reduce 3D effect). | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
This is bad news for the casual viewing of anaglyphs or anaglyph movies, but it's why I always say that you can't perfect anaglyphs with just glasses. Also, by using this following technique combined with *perfected* anaglyph glasses, you can get excellent results, but again, sadly, that is a requirement of the anaglyph creator, not the viewer. You can horizontally shift the left and right perspectives to the point of the "least amount of possible ghosting" without reducing any actual 3D effect (deviation). I find that most images can be improved this way, although window violations an be introduced by doing this. I then reduce the effects of window violations by using a thin, blurred border. Most images have one target area of highest contrast that needs to be aligned closest to the point of zero parallax, if you are wanting to set your stereo window this way, to reduce ghosting. The challenge comes when there is more than one area of depth with high contrast and ghosting. At that point, you can either choose one, or split the difference between two of them. As I said, most images can be highly improved this way, if reducing ghosting is your goal. PKK | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
I see your point Yep, using proper stereo base, colour desaturation and image shifting can help a lot. The thing is that such technique will improve just about any anaglyph out there and is not Anachrome-specific. I get the impression that Anachrome is just a buzzword... why special name for certain anaglyphs that look acceptable with glasses that violate the rule of stereo separation? I don't know... it reminds me Emperor's New Clothes |
