| Author | Message | ||
     cavador Rating: N/A |
This is working great for me on my LCD monitor. 1. Install the Nvidia 71.84 forceware and 71.84 stereo drivers 2. Set Stereo Type to "Anaglyph" 3. Go to www.anachrome.com and buy a pair of the Mirachrome glasses for $7.00 That's it. These glasses work brilliantly with games on an LCD monitor using the 71.84 Nvidia drivers. | ||
| cavador Rating: N/A |
Make that Anachrome glasses with the dark blue frames, not Mirachrome. | ||
| GainCarlo Rating: N/A |
Any ghosting or unnatural color differences? | ||
| BOPrey Rating: N/A |
Not if you are using a LCD monitor as LCD's color is much more accuate than CRTs | ||
| GianCarlo Rating: N/A |
What I'm asking is, can anaglyph color and lack of ghosting be as good as an HMD (total separation) could be? | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
unfortunately for me anachrome glasses are leaking a lot of red from the cyan lens.  the cheaper paper ones are doing a better job of cancellation. the anachrome glasses look very professional, but they should release a version if they *can* where the cyan lens dosnt leak red. anachrome may be well suited for the "anachrome" processing, but typical red-cyan encoded content seems to show a lot of red leakage. | ||
| cavador Rating: N/A |
The Anachrome glasses from www.anachrome.com are excellent. The color is wonderful. I don't notice any ghosting or leaking of any cyan or red. It's just as good to me as a CRT monitor with shutter glasses. | ||
| VRJUNKIE Rating: N/A |
Cavador, I downloaded the 10.7 mb file... does the "ForceWare" contain the "stereo" drivers as well? Because you mention Forceware AND Stereo, I'm thinking I may need more? Also, what all boards will this work with? Is there support for 3DFX based boards? I'm curious because I already own the Anachrome glasses from Alan. Thanks in advance, -VRJUNKIE | ||
| cavador Rating: N/A |
You have to download the 71.84 forceware and 71.84 stereo drivers separately. They are two different downloads. Install the 71.84 forceware drivers first then install the 71.84 stereo drivers. These are only for the Nvidia video cards. I'm not sure about 3DFX boards. | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
I need to know if this really matches the quality of shutter glasses. About two months ago, I bought an LCD, and now I only have two options: $70 e-dimensional glasses (which will take months to convince my parents to get) or these $7 glasses. I have been testing with some paper red/blue lenses, and I had a hard time telling red from blue, and green was so dark that even NVIDIA's channel-specific color correction could not correct this. Another problem was that the paper glasses made my eyes take time to adjust to fast changes in position (bullets and rockets), so these did not have a very good '3d' effect. To me, color is particluary important because I am an ONLINE GAMER, where the good guys are blue and the bad are red, and landscapes have a lot of green (tiberium), and poor colors can be confusing in intense combat (any Descent3/Nightfire player can understand what I mean). Any information on this is greatly appreciated. | ||
| VRJUNKIE Rating: N/A |
Cavador, When I look at their Stereo drivers, the only version I can find is at Rev level 61.76... I have heard both these have to be at the same rev level to co-exist and work. Can you direct me to specific links to get the 2 driver packages? Thanks in advance, VRJUNKIE | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
1) Here are the links: win98/me: stereo driver - http://download.nvidia.com/Windows/61.76/61.76_3dstereo.exe forceware - http://download.nvidia.com/Windows/61.76/61.76_win9x_english.exe win2k/nt/xp: stereo driver - http://download.nvidia.com/Windows/71.89/71.89_3dstereo.exe forceware - http://download.nvidia.com/Windows/71.89/71.89_win2kxp_english.exe 2) Would someone please answer my question? | ||
| cavador Rating: N/A |
The new 71.89 forceware and stereo drivers work great. | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
1) The 71.89 drivers are ONLY for win2k/nt/xp. 2) PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!! I need to know if this really matches the quality of shutter glasses. About two months ago, I bought an LCD, and now I only have two options: $70 e-dimensional glasses (which will take months to convince my parents to get) or these $7 glasses. I have been testing with some paper red/blue lenses, and I had a hard time telling red from blue, and green was so dark that even NVIDIA's channel-specific color correction could not correct this. Another problem was that the paper glasses made my eyes take time to adjust to fast changes in position (bullets and rockets), so these did not have a very good '3d' effect. To me, color is particluary important because I am an ONLINE GAMER, where the good guys are blue and the bad are red, and landscapes have a lot of green (tiberium), and poor colors can be confusing in intense combat (any Descent3/Nightfire player can understand what I mean). Any information on this is greatly appreciated. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Pirate68k There are very few posts about shutterglasses working with LCD monitors and those that do have this working are dissappointed with the result. The best is page flip Nvidia with shutterglasses on a CRT display. You are not missing out on anything. Check out ebay for cheap glasses - both types. With the stereo driver you can adjust the colours to match the filters you are using. Try that first. If not try to get a pair of of free ones from cereal packets or promotions, adjust the driver to match the colours you have in the glasses and give it a go. Unclebob | ||
| Aig Rating: N/A |
stereo driver v71.84 works on win98se with forceware driver 71.84. Here are the links: win98/me: forceware - http://www.nvidia.com/object/win9x_71.84.html stereo driver - http://www.nvidia.com/object/3dstereo_71.84 | ||
| cavador Rating: N/A |
pirate68k, Get some anaglyph glasses from www.anachrome.com and try them with the 71.89 drivers on your lcd monitor. To me, it looks just as good as shutter glasses with a crt monitor. If you try it and don't agree, then all you have lost is $7.00. These glasses are much better than the cheap paper ones. My games are looking great with these glasses. | ||
| Peter Wimmer Rating: N/A |
Anaglyph glasses are never as good as shutterglasses. The above posting is either lie or maybe cavador can't see the difference (e.g. because he's color blind). | ||
| cavador Rating: N/A |
It looks good to me and I'm sure that I'm not the only one who thinks so. Why would I lie? I think that I have better things to do than come on here and lie. This board is amazing. I come on here to maybe inform a few people about a very inexpensive way of viewing 3D with an LCD monitor and I get accused of being a lier and being color blind. Just ignore this post and stick with trying to get shutter glasses working on an lcd monitor. | ||
| clyde Rating: N/A |
Peter, I think everyone (including me) is looking for an on-the-fly plugin to do half-color anaglpth from games etc. If thats accomplished, *at least* we have a vaible alternative for LCD 3D. Granted, after about an hour of gameplay yr eyes are going to need a little getting used to a red/cyan tinted world  See what you can cook up will ya!! Cheers Clyde | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
Thanks for the feedback cavador. Actually, I just bought some anachrome glasses, and here are some info on them: 1. Color was virtually perfect. The only anomaly was white, and the 'redshade' was practically unnoticable. 2. I don't know why someone complained about red leackage. Actually, if you are seeing the 3d correctly (you don't have bad eyes), then the red and cyan will be on top of each other, and cancel out. No problems here for me. 3. For me the greatest problem was dimness. However, anyone with an NVIDIA card can fix this in the blink of an eye by simply setting under "advanced 3d properties" an increased gamma for stereo 3d rendering. This means that the image is made brighter when Stereo 3D rendering is being used. 4. Red/cyan tinting was unnoticable after five minutes. At one point while I was playing a game, the 3D effect was so real that I felt like I was in the game (this actually happen, it's like hypnosis), and I forgot I was wearing the glasses until someone put a sniper bullet in my character's head (ouch!). 5. I conclude this by saying that I am extremely happy I didn't waste $70 on e-demensional glasses for 3d on my LCD monitor. Especially since my old video board causes a poor enough refresh rate in 3D games, and since Anachrome was great - even in online gaming. 6. I won't be checking back here anymore because I'm done with my 3D search ;). Thanks for posting this cavador, without this topic, I'd probably still be sitting in front of my 2D monitor dreaming of getting $70 glasses that'd probably be too flickery anyway. I owe you a lot man ;). | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
oh @#$%! ghosting is a little bit of a problem. I didnt notice it at first, but after a little bit, it was clear that as my retinas became tired of colors they saw, ghosting became more apparent... this isnt the fault of the lenses, this is the fault of NVIDIA for not making better drivers... damn. Why doesn't that anachrome guy hire someone to make decent drivers? Anyway, if I can't fix this by configuring the 3D analglyph, then I guess I'll buy their clip on thingy to kill ghosting without losing anachrome quality... | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
Problem solved (partly this is much better, not perfect). Here's what to do: Set transparency at 24%. Set stereo separation at 12%. Generally, it's a bad idea to sacrifice quality for an exaggerated 3D effect, especially since the red anachrome lens is magnified, which makes them exaggerate 3D effects in my experience. Set stereo gamma setting at 1.30. Since this is monitor-specific, you should play with this alot until you like it. I recommend putting it fairly high, playing a 3D game for a while with the glasses, and then messing with this setting till you like what you see. -Check that the "Force software Vertex Shaders in Stereo" is UNCHECKED! This is extremely important if you want to kill ghosting. -It's usually a bad idea to use the "Force HW TnL off" checkbox. -In "stereo setup and test" (not your game's config settings) set the bit depth to 16bits per pixel. I have no idea why, but that does help. The rest of the settings don't seem to do much good, except the analglyph stereo button in the "Advanced Stereo Properties" tab, which can let you change the analglyph colors. By darkening the red, you can reduce red leakage, but you will also screw up the image (thanks to NVIDIA's drivers being designed for those accursed paper glasses.) Please note that these settings are for a high performance LCD monitor with NVIDIA's Digital Vibrance enabled and set to medium (YES! I LOVE RICH COLOR!). You may need to 'play' with them to get the same picture quality and ghost-busting that I did. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
www.Colorcode3d.com yellow/blue glasses will give better color but at sacrifice in brightness. You need to set custom colors in stereo drivers. Yellow instead of red and Blue instead of Cyan | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Thanks for the tip - just ordered a set. Very cheap. Background info looks well researched as well. Will let you know how it goes with my DLP Infocus X1. All the best guys Unclebob | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
After literally hours of online gaming, here are my finial test results with the glasses. 1) The glasses are certainly well-worth it, but past 7% separation, there is a little too much ghosting. This is for two reasons: a) While the overkill paper glasses certainly suck, anachrome seems to have gone a little too much to the other extreme, allowing too much red leakage. By cutting that leakage in half (not eliminating it), I think anachrome could get rid of the 'black cross' effect well enough without ghosting trouble. b) On the anachrome homepage, the author mentions how barbaric NVIDIA's anaglyph display is. I wish he'd tell us how to make 'anachrome' encoded stuff. NVIDIA cards are supposedly fully programable, and if the author of anachrome told us how his encoding avoided the typical messy anaglyph, then someone will write the software to encode that way. 2) I shall look at buying yellow/blue glasses. It sounds interesting, but I don't see how it could possibly correct for colorshifting as do the anachrome glasses. Read about the 'black cross' effect on anachrome's website. I also don't like a yellow lens because it tends to be very distracting (i have played with some food gel and biological slides in the past, trying to make my own optimum 3D lenses). Other than the ghosting, I'd say that anachrome glasses are actually better than shutterglasses, if you use the settings I recommended above. So if anyone can figure out how to alter the NVIDIA drivers to display anachrome encoding, then it will truly be the last we hear from shutter glasses. P.S. Cavador, you say you have no ghosting. I think you have some special settings for this, because ghosting is quite apparent to me. Are you using mirachrome glasses? And what game are you testing this with? The 3D test app that nvidia has is NOT a very good example of the ghosting I am talking about. Try playing C&C Renegade, or Nightfire. The effect is particlary noticable in Renegade with a stereo separation of 17%, although ghosting in that game is noticable at anything above 4% separation. | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
Well, it took a while for me to realize this but here it is: you dont need more than 3% separation. I've done a little playing, and I found that with the anachrome lenses, low separation is good enough. It isn't eye-popping or anything like what you see in theateres like IMAX 3D, but it's good enough to create a very realistic effect. The trick is to eliminate other light sources in the room. Close blinds, turn lights off, etc. Then play for about 5 minutes WITHOUT the glasses. Then put them on, and 3% separation will seem more like 30%. I can't explain the effect, so seeing is believing. Notice that i said 'play' for 5 minutes. I mean exactly that, and defidently in the same game you will be using the glssses in. This allows your eyes to adjust to the same background in 2D that you will be seeing in 3D. And no, this doesn't mean you have to take breaks or something stupid like that. | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
almost forgot, make sure to boost the gamma. | ||
| Peter Wimmer Rating: N/A |
Reading the above postings it turned out that Anachrome glasses cause severe ghosting. Besides the optically corrected and more leaky red lens, Anachrome glasses don't differ basically from ordinary anaglyph glasses. And of course seeing red only with the left eye and cyan only with the right eye causes eyestrain (maybe less noticeable for some individuals than for others). There's also lots of ghosting when using shutterglasses on CRT monitors (approximately the same level as with anaglyphs) -- but at least the colors are ok. I can only repeat what I said before: The experience with shutterglasses is better than with anaglyph glasses. (I don't want to pedantic, but I consider it important for all people who coincidentally read this postings and have never used such systems theirselves.) ColorCode glasses are far to dark and they are not able to produce better colors than red-cyan anaglyph or Anachrome glasses. In fact, everythink looks just bluish then using these glasses. PS: Calvador, I understand your exitement about gaming in 3D, but did you ever compared a shutterglasses to an anaglyph system side-by-side? It seems to me that you are a bit too euphoric about Anachrome. Don't understand me wrong, I also use anaglyph glasses more frequently than shutterglasses because they are more easy to handle. I've also seen a lot of of great, optimized anaglpyh stuff. Nevertheless, the fundamential drawback - different color filters for each eye - remain, making shutterglasses the superior system (at least on CRT, on LCDs, they don't really work). And I never said you are color-blind. This was just a possible expanation why you can't see any quality difference between shutterglasses and anaglyph glasses. Didn't you notice I've written "e.g." (= exempli gratia = for example)? | ||
| salterre Rating: N/A |
Is there any way to calibrate analglyph glasses based on the nvidia "Color Correction" profiles? I have a few different pairs of glasses and am looking for a calibration image to ensure proper red, blue, and gamma values. Any clues? | ||
| ihate56k Rating: N/A |
Uh, Colourcode raises it's ugly head. I've got a couple of pairs of these, it's a nice idea, but the effect is really bad. I don't know if my eyes are unusually poor at seeing blue or something, but I couldn't even tell if the stereo was working or not playing games with them. Even the official colourcode dvd's are no better, the stereo is poor to say the least, and after a while my right eye is so starved of light compared to my left eye that it actually starts aching. the ghosting is bad too, the yellow 'filter' lets through a lot of blue, even on the official dvd's I've got shutter glasses, Paper and plastic red/cyan glasses, and paper official colour code glasses. I wouldn't consider the use of anaglyph glasses where shutter glasses are an option, the stereo effect is about 25% weaker to my eyes with anaglyph, not to mention the colour artifacts. Anaglyph glasses are the only real option for TFT, or non syncing DLP users, or for printed media. I wouldn't use colourcode for anything, the stereo effect is just to poor. | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
Oh, Lord... here we go again ;-) ;-) ;-) I'm going to give it to you with both barrels, so please don't take this too personally... I just have _way_ too much time invested in this to tell you a line of bullshit. I just knew I should have spent the past 5,000 hours studying how to be an airline pilot or a doctor or lawyer or something, instead of an anaglyph maker ;-) It's impossible to create "great" anaglyphs on-the-fly, or to automate the process of making "great" anaglyphs. One image (that's one frame or one scene) can take up to an hour (or more) with very elaborate software and settings. Sometimes, you luck out and get an easy one that takes a few minutes... but rarely. The best you could hope for in existing 3D gaming is an optimization process that eliminates the retinal rivalry, but the sacrifice in colors would un-excite most people... i.e., very "dull looking" games. Compared to shutterglasses, it would almost be as bad as changing over to "black and white" imagery, IMHO, and people won't go for that (I sure wouldn't). Better stick with shutterglasses or non-anaglyphic systems for existing games. Trust me... if there were great "global" settings for automating anaglyphs, I would have done it a few thousand hours ago... give up and move on to things that *can* be done. You are just wasting your time trying! :-) OTOH, maybe pre-converted anaglyphs that are created by anaglyph artists could possibly be output to "game formats". That is the thing to pursue. A "stereo driver" just can't do it... sorry... it takes an anaglyph artist. P. K. Kid Stereoscopic 3D images and movie clips (all G-rated): http://www.puppetkites.net | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
BTW, I know nothing about how to make interactive games, but I do know that an anaglyph artist can create an anaglyph animation, slide show, movie, etc, and then actually save the anaglyph "settings" in the original stereo pair. This can be done by "reverse engineering" the anaglyph process with appropriate software. The results can then be viewed "on the fly" in anaglyph format by page-flipping, or played field or frame sequentially, etc... IOW, you can create stereo pairs that have all the "needed" anaglyph information except for the conversion to red and cyan channels. This is done by doing the anaglyphs scene by scene, then removing _only_ the step of converting the left and right views to red and cyan. *Somehow*, maybe this is how great interactive anaglyph games could be created by anaglyph artists, but again, I don't know how to do the game part of it... it's a long shot, but it might work. PKK | ||
| ihate56k Rating: N/A |
PPK is right, Nvidia's anaglyph mode is dire, to do a basic anaglyph in photoshop I tend to change the saturation of each eye's image about 80% for the red eye and 20% for the cyan eye... it's a good general rule for reducing the 'flicker' effect of objects only being seen in one eye. A simple rule like this is crude, and doesn't fit every image, but does improve things, but even this is impossible in nvidia, any 'colour correction' is done to the final onscreen image, not the image going into the stereo3d engine, so reducing the general saturation doesn't work. If anyone knows how this can be achieved in nvidia I'd be interested, as far as I know it's impossible. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
I have a distinct feeling that the anachrome glasses are off the shelf "made in taiwan" kind, and cannot be tweaked for different shades of red, thats why its being said that they "allow" a little red to seep thru for a more natural look. This sounds more of an excuse than anything. the given fact is, EVEN on the anachrome website, there is leakage evident on the non-white images. All the sculptures in white look good, but study the other few full color spectrum images and you will see bad leakage and hence ghosting with the glasses. Meanwhile even the cheaper paper glasses make these same images more bearable with less ghosting. The use of less stereobase is ofcourse good advice, but not the best combination to go the anachrome glasses way. I do howver note that there is slight magnification on the red lens of the anachrome glasses, which is the only reason I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they are maybe not taiwan off the shelf glasses. but the leakage of red lens really is not making sense to me. | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
1) They aren't off the shelf tiwan glasses. 2) When you properly configure everything, there is no ghosting, nor color shifting with anachrome lenses. It's taken me a few days to get this right, but the trick is to use the colorcorrection to increase the gamma to 1.31 and set the red channel gamma to 1.16 gamma. Some additional changes to brightness levels may be necessary, but in the end, there will be no colorshift. No 'black cross' effect either. The cyan lens leaks red ON PURPOSE! For details on the way anachrome glasses work, go here: http://www.anachrome.com/anaexp.htm 3) You must not set the separation too high. I'm sorry, but it seems that without a HMD, there is simply no way to get unrealistic 3d effects, so don't bother. Keep separation at 6% MAX, and you will be fine. Plus, the 3d will be more relistic instead of ridiculous. Already this has made me much better at playing games... | ||
| anonymous Rating: N/A |
Quote [The cyan lens leaks red ON PURPOSE! For details on the way anachrome glasses work, go here: http://www.anachrome.com/anaexp.htm ] /Quote Thats exactly what im saying above, Cyan leaking red seems to be an excuse for a bad cyan lens in the first place! The purpose of anaglyph filtering is to negate the complementary color as much as possible! Letting red seep thru dosnt make sense when you can see a red "halo" around colors representing the sky or greenery, EVEN if it makes skin tones look better | ||
| anonymous Rating: N/A |
Ps. The belief that killing red completely and leaving black is correct, BUT, outdated information. search for greyscaled left channel anaglyph on this board for updated info on what causes retinal rivalry. or see PKK's shade corrected methods to do it. | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
Umm, anachrome glasses are designed to prevent you from having to use halftoning. Also, by leaking the lens rather than halftoning, you get much better color. Get a pair of red/cyan lenses and look at a halftoned image, and compare that to a full color image with anachrome and you will see what I mean. Halftoning minimizes colorshift and kills retinal rivary, but it doesn't deliver completely perfect color like anachrome glasses do without halftoning. Actually, that leakage and other problems are resulting from bugs in the NVIDIA drivers. At one point I had these bugs not happening for 15 minutes, and I was awed - the color was full and there was less ghosting than I have seen with shutterglasses (I tried a set when I went to the goddart NASA open-house and looked at the CAVE). Unfortunately, those NVIDIA drivers are unstable, and I am being plauged by bugs again, which I hope to find some way of putting down permanately. Here's how to check if you are having problems in the driver: set the separation to 0%. If you see anything other than a ordinary 2D image, something's not right. Also, in the test app, the text at the top left corner should not separate ever, even at 100% separation. | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
I reinstalled my drivers and everything is fine here, so I will give a little time to explain the differences between cellophane lenses and anachrome lenses, as well as the final solution to ghosting problems with anachrome glasses. 1) Color. Color is the main advantage in anachrome. Many colors such as green and pink do not come out right with anything but anachrome glasses. To prove my point, just run the nvidia test app. Notice that purple patch in front of the yellow? Now put on those cheap paper glasses using cellphane. Look at it now and you see a blue patch, not purple. Now put on the anachrome glasses and you will see a purple patch just as it should be. Halftoning can minimize this, but it simply cannot cancel this effect as well as anachrome glasses. 2) Brightness. This is a major disadvantage with anachrome lenses. Fortunately, all you have to do is set the gamma a little higher since you are obviously using an NVIDIA card. Mirachrome glasses may also fix this since both their lenses are magnified more than anachrome glasses. 3. Ghosting. This is a very annoying effect. The paper glasses will better kill ghosting because the cyan lens doesn't leak in them, but then you will have all the horrible problems like colorshifting. Anachrome glasses leak, so the analglyph must be set to have low transparency. I will talk about this later. 4. Retinal rivarly. In this case, either using anachrome lenses, or halftoning with paper lenses will work. NOW I SHALL TELL YOU THE SECRET TO KILLING GHOSTING IN ANACHROME! Set the transparency level in the "Advanced Stereo Properties" tab to 0%. If the settings take effect, then you will see no more ghosting with the anachrome lenses than you would with the paper glasses when you view the test app. Unfortunately, your settings are unlikely to take effect, especially if you have a very old video card like I do. If you still see ghosting after setting transparency to 0%, then you will need to reinstall ALL your drivers in the following order (make sure they are all the latest versions for your o/s and if asked if you want files overwritten answer YES TO ALL!!!): 1) The nvidia drivers for your card. 2) The forceware drivers. 3) The stereo drivers. All the problems with viewing 3D using anachrome glasses could be corrected easily if the dirvers weren't buggy. Therefore, I blame NVIDIA for all our problems :P. On a final note, I'd like tho point out that it is MUCH CHEAPER to make a overkill cyan lens with no leakage than to make a lens that leaks. If you understand how plastics are made, you will know that since cyan is made of blue & green only, the lens wouldn't leak unless someone put a little red tint on purpose. If the blue & green tints were simply lessened to allow red to pass through, then the anachrome glasses would produce a far brighter image than the paper lenses. As we can see it is much dimmer than that, I garantee you that the red leakage is very deliberate, and not an 'excuse'. | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
Well, I will say this much... I have been using Anachrome glasses (I need to get a bunch of them, Allan :-) as much as practical to check all of my anaglyphs in the past year or so for "perfection", as far as the anaglyph conversion is concerned... but making a "great" retinal rivalry free, color-enhanced (lots of brilliant colors) anaglyph conversion is nothing short of a complex art form. A simple "half-color" (I assume this is what was meant by "half-toning") conversion won't work, although that alone will shade-correct many colors. There is much, much more to it than that. BTW, the left, red channel (left perspective) of the anaglyph itself is totally and absolutely monochromatic, i.e., only one color, and that color is red. I'm not talking about the glasses, I'm talking about the analgyph itself. If you are seeing "colors" through the red lens of the glasses, those colors _have_ to be bleeding (leaking and ghosting, actually) from the other perspective, period, because there are absolutely no colors (other than red) in the left perspective channel! If they are showing other colors, they are doing that only because the red lens is failing to cancel the opposite cyan perspective to total black. If I told you how many hours I've spent doing this, you'd never believe me, so just believe me :-) Although I enjoy perfecting my anaglyphs for Anachrome glasses, I also check them with cheap red/cyan glasses... just in case Allan doesn't get the chance to "Anachromate" the entire world population ;-) -- P. K. Kid Stereoscopic 3D images and movie clips (all G-rated): http://www.puppetkites.net | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
And visa-versa. If you see ghosting from the "red" channel through the cyan lens of the glasses, that can only happen if the cyan lens fails to cancel the red channel to total black. With Anachrome glasses, you usually end up seeing colorless, grayscale ghosting artifacts through the red lens and both red and cyan ghosting artifacts through the cyan lens, if you do not properly create the anaglyph to eliminate those effects. A "perfectly" created anaglyph will show neither, even with Anachrome glasses :-) You should be able to see little to no ghosting and virtually no retinal rivalry with Anachrome glasses in the images on my website, although my camcorders are very cheap and they don't have great optics and therefor the colors are a bit "subdued", sometimes. Eventually, I will get my hands on some pro gear :-) By the way, the ghosting in "A Ghostly Quiz About Stereoscopic Depth" is not real ghosting :-) :-) :-) http://www.puppetkites.net/anaglyph.htm PKK | ||
| clyde Rating: N/A |
Hi, I recently got a demo bunch of Anachrome glasses from Allan. They are great, and I definately like the semi mirrored finish and sturdy plastic handles. BUT... here are my observations 1) The cyan lens does leak red and so leaves a border around objects in very colorful scenes.. yes this can be "cured" by keeping stereobase to a minimum, but not practical for motion video where you would have to treat a scene on a frame by frame basis. (doing still images for slide shows is fine). 2) I will ONLY use professional lighting filters in glasses for projects I do, mainly for print and when used as cost effective give-aways. 3) I will soon enough put in bigger orders for Anachrome glasses for distribution with material where the glasses need to look professional and have to be retained by the audience for a longer time. Again, Im not entirely happy with the way anachrome glasses do their cancelling, and I have to re-iterate that shifting stereobase to minimum is not an effective solution for motion video, when lee filters will do excellent color extinction. BUT I will definately buy anachrome for projects where sturdy pro looking anaglyph glasses need to be distributed. Sorry for being so blunt, I hope these observations are taken objectively only, in the end .. each to his own. Regards Clyde | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
Just one comment about motion graphics and movies. I do indeed eliminate or highly reduce the ghosting in most cases, just as I do with individual images. This is not done only by controlling the deviation via stereo base control, this is done by parallax adjustments, and those have to be animated with motion graphics. I have also figured out how to totally control the window violations at the same time. Not only should my still image screenshots on my webpages look virtually ghost-free and retinal rivalry-free with Anachrome glasses, so should my animations and movies, although I have not yet made any movies with total window violation control (coming from now on :-) And again, making great anaglyphs with "great colors" is a very complex thing to do... but it is possible. Also, again, since I don't have any movies made with pro gear available, yet, my colors in most of my web videos might be a little subdued, compared to what I can do with professional optics. And, again, I also check my anaglyphs with regular cheap red/cyan paper glasses, so you can also use those to view my images. Anachrome glasses show "better" color representations, though... but again, in my images, minimal ghosting or retinal rivalry, if any at all. P. K. Kid Stereoscopic 3D images and movie clips (all G-rated): http://www.puppetkites.net | ||
| clyde Rating: N/A |
**sigh*** To me , retinal rivalry is... when one eye sees a color/shde and th other dosnt. typical example is th spykids poster on tha has been anachromzed on the anachrome webpage. I feel its better to see a subdued "red" color than thone on the right. all due respect to PkK, but honestly hearig phrases like "my" ,"mine", etc, is really getting a bit immodest now. We all have learnt how to make great anaglyphs in our won way, I dont like typig the same thing over and over, but if one was to dig deeper into posts made on this board and on the yahoo board,you'll see the direct result of software lke Peter Wimmers optimized anaglyph mode as a result of me opening up the subject of dissecting Akumiras methods. Lets try and end ths debate soon on ho "great anaglyphs is an art", and movig parallaxes and fuzzy borders for windowsviolations shall we? No offence meant, seriously, but i keep getting the feling tht Pkk always wants to have the last word? why? Try professional filters from lee or roscoe (primary red and peacock blue - its a cyan filter actualy tho it says blue) and you will see what greatcolor reproduction in anaglyphs should look like. Dont use the chaper shrek/spykids paer glasses, Best Regards lyde | ||
| clyde Rating: N/A |
Ps. Sorry for takig off like that in the above post, But can you tell me how Paralax and Stereo base are NOT the same thing? I know Im missing somethng simple here. afaik, stereobase setting would dictate how parallax was created in the first place? clyde | ||
| clyde Rating: N/A |
PPS excuse the Horrid typos in my posts, im typing from my newset-top based browser on TV with an infrred keyboard :D BTW,with anachrome glasses AND with pro lighting gels, most anaglyphs on websites are leaky when viewig right now via my set-top boxes composite video out on TV **sigh!*** back to reasons why anaglyph 3d had a hard time beig broadcast! | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
WOA! I went to puppet kite kid's link, and I noticed absolutely no ghosting in those pictures! As I said before, with NVIDIA, even with the paper glasses, a little ghosting is visible, so how did you do that so well? I'd really like to know how to make my NVIDIA card do something like that!!! I'D REALLY SELL MY SOUL FOR IT!!! | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
Please don't take my usage of "me and mine" wrongly. I am just referring to "my work", that's all. Trying to communicate with only text can be confusing. I'm not trying to brag at all! I just "do what I do"... I really try to be a humble person, but that is hard to communicate with text :-) And if I spend 3 hours on one anaglyph, I think I deserve to call that "art", although I try not to spend that much time on each image or scene. Sorry... but it's not easy to do! You don't see "colors" (more than one) through the left red lens, unless it bleeds through from the other perspective, because the left channel is only one color (monochromatic)... because of that, retinal rivalry in anaglyphs is not actually caused by "color" differences, it is caused by shade differences, i.e., "light and dark" values. Two colors can have equal shade values, and that is exactly how I remove the retinal rivalry. The subjects in the left perspective red channel are a "certain shade of red" and the same subjects in the right perspective cyan channel are a "certain shade of cyan" (actually green and blue... two colors). To remove retinal rivalry caused by those shade differences, I "equalize" the shades in each subject, so they have the same exact light and dark values through the red and cyan lenses. There are actually a seemingly infinite number of color choices that can do this, and I can change any color to any other color in each perspective. All of this has to be done as I am looking at the final anaglyph, which is the real challenge, i.e., you have to find software where you can do that. I do it with Adobe After Effects by nesting compositions. To answer your other question, stereo base is the distance the camera lenses are apart when you record, shoot or compose the image (3D CGI), and parallax, or precisely "horizontal parallax" is the measurable amount that the stereoscopic images are apart _after_ the image is recorded, shot or composed. The stereo base determines the amount of stereo depth in the image (stereoscopic deviation) and that distance can actually be measured horizontally on the screen, by measuring the horizontal *difference* between the nearest and farthest visible points in the image. You can change the horizontal parallax simply by shifting the left and/or right images left or right on the screen. This will change the point of zero parallax on the screen, i.e., the place that appears to be the same depth as the screen. The "stereo window", on the other hand, is defined only by the edges of the image, and those edges do not have to appear at the same depth as the screen. The difference between "horizontal parallax" and "stereo window" is you can shift the parallax, but not crop the edges, and the stereo window (the edges of the stereo perspectives) will appear to be in front of or beyond the screen, depending on which way (left or right) you shifted the images. You can also place the stereo window to appear at the same depth as the screen, if you choose to do that. Those are the basics, but one thing always leads to another, so this is basically the tip of a very large iceberg ;-) -- P. K. Kid Stereoscopic 3D images and movie clips (all G-rated): http://www.puppetkites.net | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
pirate68k, "Compositional ghosting", which is what I call ghosting that is present at the time of the creation of the stereo image (not just anaglyphs... "any" stereo image) and is not caused *only* by the display equipment (monitor, connectors, etc), is caused from high contrast, i.e., light and dark values very close together in a scene where there is stereoscopic deviation (depth) present. First of all, as you will hopefully understand after you read this entire message, controlling the stereoscopic deviation (depth) can help control ghosting, too, but this can also create "too flat" of an image, if you aren't careful. I have an optimum amount of stereo depth that I prefer, and I try to use the other means of de-ghosting, instead of decreasing the amount of depth. (That's the very basics of that topic, but I at least wanted to mention it.) There are only a couple of ways to eliminate or reduce the effects of compositional ghosting, and that is by reducing the contrast in those areas of ghosting, or by shifting the horizontal parallax so that those areas have almost zero on-screen parallax (appear close to screen depth). Reducing the contrast can also "kill" the colors, so that's why I do not prefer that method of de-ghosting. In images with only one area of ghosting, using the parallax shifting method of de-ghosting can be easy... just set zero parallax close to that point... but it gets challenging when there is more than one area of ghosting at different depths. If that happens, I either "split the difference" between the two (or three or four ;-) areas or I decide on a "most important" area in the scene, and concentrate on de-ghosting that, then just try to tolerate the other area(s) of ghosting (and I hate when that happens :-) Most of the time, I seem to luck out and only have one area of ghosting, or two areas "close together" so that one parallax adjustment seems to work for both of them. You don't always have to set the area exactly to zero parallax... just getting close (or closer) usually helps a lot. Lastly, sometimes you can "hide" the ghosting in areas in the scene that are "busy" with graphics, i.e. "lots of graphic activity in one area of the image". I just move the ghosting to that area by shifting the parallax until it is hidden in that area... sort of the equivalent of "sweeping the ghosts under the rug" ;-) Fortunately, eliminating or reducing the effects of compositional ghosting also reduces the effects of *many* other types of ghosting... and there are many causes of those other types of ghosting... and there are exceptions... sometimes the effects of those other types of ghosting are so severe that they cannot be dealt with at all! PKK | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
Also (Clyde ;-), almost all of the things I talked about in those last two messages can be animated with keyframes. That is how you can do all that with motion graphics. Everything, even down to anaglyph colors, can be animated any way needed, including the parallax adjustments, stereo window (edges), etc. And almost miraculously, controlling the stereoscopic deviation (the depth, pretty much set with the stereo base at the time of shooting) by avoiding "excessive deviation" (depth) also makes the animation "variables" more controllable, easier to view (helping to prevent headaches), and avoids having to deal with "extreme amounts" of most things, stereoscopically speaking, but again, too little depth can also create poor images that are "too flat". That is why I have a preferred "optimum amount" of depth that I try to use in most of my scenes... that is one of my main goals for the future, anyway :-) PKK | ||
| clyde Rating: N/A |
Quote [To answer your other question, stereo base is the distance the camera lenses are apart when you record, shoot or compose the image (3D CGI), and parallax, or precisely "horizontal parallax" is the measurable amount that the stereoscopic images are apart _after_ the image is recorded, shot or composed. ] /Quote ... That's what I mean... the horizontal Parallax is actually "SET" by the stereo base. eg. say you have a typical scene, a person upfront, a tree at mid depth and a mountain peak at far background... Now if you converge/focus on the tree then obviously the person will have negative parallax (come out of screen) and so the horizontal parralax for the person is increased as is the mountain peak in the far background.... ...same if you focus/converge on the person, the mountain will have excessive horizontal parallax. ....If you dont converge/focus BUT instead have a dual rig aimed at infinity, THEN the horizontal distance that the two lenses are placed will dictate the point of convergence (..meaning if you were to view your scene in 3d live, if you made the person walk away from from you, at one point you would see no parallax on the person ie. the "screen plane", as the person moved further, parallax would keep increasing (in the + direction). QUOTE [The stereo base determines the amount of stereo depth in the image (stereoscopic deviation) and that distance can actually be measured horizontally on the screen, by measuring the horizontal *difference* between the nearest and farthest visible points in the image. You can change the horizontal parallax simply by shifting the left and/or right images left or right on the screen. This will change the point of zero parallax on the screen, i.e., the place that appears to be the same depth as the screen] /QUOTE ..Exactly what's being done by setting the stereo base as i said above. The problems you will face by "animating" the horizontal parallax ..to be more precise... shifting the left and right views is that if you try to rectify disturbing areas of excessive parallax, say for example the mountain peaks being too far, is that you will introduce more parallax /window violation errors in foreground objects. Horizontal parallax shifting may be popular with stereoscopic Slide photographers, who do this to accomodate different projection screen sizes for audience comfort, but doing this for moving film is a nightmare. In my opinion, horizontal parallax is set by the spacing of the cameras in the first place, so animating stereobase aka, converging/physically moving cameras apart horizontally is akin to shifting left right views of projected/post processed imagery. thats the similarity I was speaking of. Now about shade corrected anaglyphs, Yes I already know that its the Shades/contrast levels of both the left and right views that make for retinal free anaglyphs, sorry if it came out wrong above, but i did say colors/shades :-p Thats what we discovered that akumira was based on. Personally I prefer the "half color" mode versus the optimized mode as half color mode makes for more vibrant anaglyphs than the other. having said all of the above, I will admit that you using after effects to keyframe animate horizontal parallax, change and/or replace shades/colors of scenes, is indeed an art-form and will take time, BUT YES, you are right, that is the only way to produce a completed film with vibrant colors (anaglyph). ...returning to the original debate, i still am pretty dead sure (and have proof) that viewing colorful pictures on the anachrome site is indeed coming out better with pro lighting gels than teh anachrome glasses, and the reason being there is red bleed in scenes that dont call for red bleed. meaning yes peoples faces look more natural, but grass and skies are bleeding red. Meanwhile all the sculptures which are basically white look fantastic. Regards, Clyde | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
Well, anachrome is working well enough, however, as I said before, they are dimming my image. And gamma correction has NOT been enough to fix this for me. So I have a better idea, one that should have NO PROBLEMS. To make it work, however, I need my 3D gaming displayed as two images, preferably one on top and one on bottom. Go here: http://www.goliathindustries.com/vb/VB3D.html and take a look at "Spike's 3D Glasses", and you will see why I want two separated images. Could someone please tell me about some piece of 3rd party software that does this? NVIDIA doesn't seem to have an opition like that. | ||
| Brian David Phillips Rating: N/A |
"I have a distinct feeling that the anachrome glasses are off the shelf "made in taiwan" kind" You do . . . of course . . . realize that not everything "Made in Taiwan" is of crappy quality, don't you? There is actually some very good stuff made here . . . some crap too, but the really crappy "Made in Taiwan" stuff is now, for the most part, being made in China. :-) All the best, Brian Brian David Phillips, PhD, CH Associate Professor, English Dept., NCCU, Taipei, Taiwan http://groups.yahoo.com/group/3D-StereoviewXchange http://briandavidphillips.typepad.com/brian/3d_stereophotography_and_photography/index.html | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
LOL! Anachrome glasses have less ghosting than paper ones if you config the drivers right. However, the rich color comes at the price of brightness, and that's why i'd like to display the 3d in over/under using "Spike's 3D glasses" which use mirrors to achieve 100% perfection. As i said above, i need special software to do this... | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
I've decided to show you how well anachrome is working for me. Download this file: http://www.triforce.tektonics.net/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=9 In it you will find a word document. Open it, and put on anachrome glasses. YOU WILL BE DAZZLED. The quality of this is as good as or better than shutter glasses. | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
Clyde, Stereoscopic deviation is what is determined by the camera stereo base. The amount of relative deviation stays the same after you shoot the image, but the horizontal parallax can be shifted. Stereoscopic deviation is the stereoscopic difference (the depth) between the nearest and farthest points in the image. However, it *can* be measured on the screen by actually measuring those distances horizontally. Personally, I analyze it by measuring it as a "percentage" of the image width, e.g., "1/30th of the image width", but you can also give it a real number, e.g., 1.2mm on the film, or 4 inches on the monitor, or 3 feet on the screen, etc... The horizontal parallax is the horizontal "relationship" between the two perspectives. You can shift the horizontal parallax, and yet the relative deviation always stays the same, although if you resize the image, the "measurable amount" can change, but the relative amount (in relation to the imagery) never changes. All the horizontal parallax adjustment does is determine which objects appear in front of or beyond the screen. The relative amount of deviation stays the same, no matter what you do to the parallax adjustment, as long as you do not crop off the near or far points. All of my movies have animated horizontal parallax. I have done extensive testing, and there are absolutely no adverse affects to doing this. The results are very "natural-looking" and pleasing to the eye. There is nothing about it than can induce a headache or cause any visual problems or challenges. It is actually "easier on the eyes" than what we experience every day, all day, with our eyes in nature, because with stereoscopic imaging, the eyes always remain focused "at distance of the screen" and never have to compensate for changes in distance, like we do in nature. The screen itself would have to move closer or farther away from you, in order for that to happen. The only thing your eyes have to do with stereoscopic imaging is horizontally converge to view different points in z-depth in the image, but controlling the deviation (with the original stereo base settings) also controls this "degree" of required convergence, i.e, more deviation requires more convergence. OTOH, shifting the parallax does not create "more or less" total deviation, it just changes where the objects appear in z-depth, and determines *where* the eyes have to converge to to view specific objects. Obviously, you have to avoid eye divergence, but that's another complete topic... that only starts becoming a challenge when the relationship between the screen size and the distance to the audience introduces the potential for eye divergence. I have recently figured out how to eliminate all window violations, at the same time as I animate the horizontal parallax. I do this by shifting the position of the stereo window edges in z-depth. It works perfectly, and there is also no adverse effects from doing this, other than the potential for introducing ghosting at those edges, when they are placed in front of or beyond the screen, but I have also solved that problem by using a very thin fuzzy border... however much is need to stop the effects of that ghosting. Controlling the amount of deviation also helps make all this stuff *work* as well as possible. Obviously, all these techniques of animating the parallax and the stereo window (edges) for de-ghosting can't be done when the relationship between screen size and distance to the audience introduces the potential for eye divergence, but you could still take the same movies and globally re-adjust the parallax to avoid that, and with just one adjustment, but then you have to provide a stereoscopic viewing system that does not introduce ghosting, to avoid ghosting, e.g., active glasses at an Imax theater. PKK | ||
| clyde Rating: N/A |
ok | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
pirate68k, That's correct, you can reduce the effects of ghosting by reducing the contrast and the brightness in either the image itself or with the display adjustments, but it totally kills the colors and degrades the overall image quality, with a severity directly related to the amount of adjustments applied. Not coincidentally, you can also reduce flicker in field sequential 3D or field sequential anaglyphs this way, too, but again, with the resulting compromise in image integrity. | ||
| GianCarlo Rating: N/A |
My personal opinion is that the best value way to get hi-res, great-contrast, zero ghosting personal stereo is the dual-monitor & mirror method supported by dual-output nvidia cards. You simply need to take the risk of reversing the hoizontal deflection coil in one CRT and install a first-surface mirror on a 2-way camera head to bisect the angle between the monitors. Reversing an LCD's image may also be possible but I've never heard of anyone trying it. Not including the second monitor which I already had laying around, the cost was about $80 for parts. No question, this is what I'm doing until a great HMD comes out. I've had friends who previously said 3D was crap sit down stare in awe of what 3D is supposed to be like. True, more awesome results are possible at much greater expense, but nothing beats this value. | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
You are very wrong. I DID NOT CHANGE BRIGHTNESS OR CONTRAST TO GET THE PICTURES I POSTED ABOVE TO STOP GHOSTING. The only thing I did was set the stereo transparency to 100% and then make certain that the buggy drivers had applied my settings correctly (they often do not). The gamma change was only to compensate for the dimness that anachrome lenses may cause, and that gamma change was very slight. I am getting full, rich color with minimum ghosting this way. If you don't believe me, go get yourself some anachrome glasses and take a look at the pics in that zip file I posted. On a final note, I'd like to say that I've already heard of the mirror+dual monitor trick. I can't stand the idea of gaming that way, as I tend to like being free to move around... | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
whoops! I meant to say that I set transparency at 0% not 100%. | ||
| Peter Wimmer Rating: N/A |
>You simply need to take the risk of reversing the hoizontal deflection coil in one CRT and install a first-surface mirror on a 2-way camera head to bisect the angle between the monitors. Doeing this in software would be more reasonable... For videos, this already can be done, for games I don't know a solution. Peter | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
That's a worthless idea, since it's awful to be constrained like that when gaming... although I'm sure it'd look great... I think anachrome is good enough... just a little dim... does anyone know how to get gaming to be displayed in over-under split-screen format? I've heard of a simple trick with mirrors to get real good 3D out of over-under images... | ||
| GianCarlo Rating: N/A |
Yes, if you like to move all around when you play then the dual monitor idea may not be for you. But I find I can tilt my head up to 45 degrees in any direction, move forward or back about 3 inches and shift side to side about an inch in either direction without any loss of 3D. That's plenty for me. Now, if you mount the mirror(s) on a hat or glasses, then you can't roll your head at all, very annoying and not recommended. | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
actually i didn't know you had a few inches of freedom... i thought you had to keep your nose stuck in there... well, mounting the mirrors on glasses actually won't be so bad, with the design i want i should have about 2 feet of freedom in all directions if the monitor is more than 1&1/2 feet away (which it is of course). | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
please click here: http://www.stereo3d.com/discus/messages/22/3319.html?1116325499 | ||
| Puppet Kite Kid Rating: N/A |
pirate68k, Your image examples were very dark. I didn't mean that you personally lowered the brightness or contrast. I just meant to say that is one way to reduce ghosting, but with significant loss of image quality. Also, it is no coincidence that most of the available anaglyph movies have that same "dark" characteristic, and although that is a popular technique, I personally prefer using an animated parallax to reduce ghosting, and it works equally as well for non-anaglyph stereo graphics in ghosted environments. -- P. K. Kid Stereoscopic 3D images and movie clips (all G-rated): http://www.puppetkites.net | ||
| Allan Silliphant Rating: N/A |
Something new from Anachrome. Higher cancellation glasses, They are called anachrome (M) for movie glasses. They are cheaper,no diopter, and have more blue in the right filter. They do not leak noticable red unless the overlay totally sucks. We are selling them to theaters for "Shark Boy & Lava Girl." We never buy glasses off the shelf, and these were custom made from scratch to please those people who place so much stock in the value of ghost elimination vrs. broader color info. We are trying to rachet up the red cancellation without throwning out the warm-skin, green foliage baby with the "cancellation" bath water. I'll send free samples to PKK and Clyde in a few days, and pirate65K, if he sends an address. | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
Hmm... sounds interesting, if i can i shall email my address to the maker of anachrome glasses (if that's who you are after all) and I shall do my best to make the nVidia work well with them. However, I would like to say something about my renegade sample images. They are actually very bright when viewed with a gamma correction of 1.20 - 1.30 on a top quality LCD panel. The image is quite bright when the glasses are taken off, but becomes dim when the lenses are put on, so brightness is problably the greatest flaw in anachrome. Also, don't go to far in cancelation. I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THE FULL COLOR OF ANACHROME! Now certainly, I'd be willing to lose quite a bit of color to get ghost elimination, but please don't go to the extreme of paper glasses. Here's a sumary of what I think should be in a 'perfect nVidia analglyph gaming glasses': Sufficient color to easily tell the difference between red and purple text (even small text), about 50% more brightness than current anachrome glasses provide (this is NOT the brightness of the image), and just enough cancellation to prevent ghosting (not like paper glasses). btw, i solved the keyboard lockups nVidia causes with it's drivers. Open wordpad (not notepad) and save this into it: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\Stereo3D] "DiscardHotkeys"=dword:00000000 Then save it as a .reg file, and anytime you get a keyboard lockup, double click that file and answer yes. | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
I am sorry to say that I cannot give out my address under any cirucumstances, because I think you might not be who you say you are, and since there is no way of knowing, I just can't do it. However, if the High Cancellation glasses make it to a dealer doing credit-card orders, then I will probably try to get a set. Btw, I think you should consider making a special gaming formula as I mentioned above. I'd be willing to pay up to $20 for something like that. | ||
| pirate68k Rating: N/A |
Something interesting I just found out: 3D effects become much more apparent and less ghostly when viewed at lesser magnification. I found this out looking at the nVidia manual, and I noticed a 100% perfect 3d image from the test app with wild 3d effects and no ghosting. I then looked over some of my sample pics at different sizes, and they looked better and more 3d when made smaller. It seems to me that 'separation' is the wrong way to get a wild 3d effect. Rather, just display the perspectives. In fact, I have found that without separating the images at all (or barely at all), wild 3d effects are possible by adjusting the perspectives. It works like this: If I take two pictures, three feet apart, and then put them no more than 3mm apart on analglyph, then they will have nearly the same (although much cleaner) effect as if the images were placed an inch apart! Now does anyone know how to make the nVidia drivers display images at lesser separation, while displaying perspective views that would be equivalent to a much greater separation? That should create a WILD effect with no ghosting at all. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Very good webpage you have here and best greetings to all your visitors. |
