Can next RealFlight include 3D graphics?

opjose referred to a "classic" illusion. That's the type of illusion such as looking at a line that looks like it's curved, but holding a ruler to it shows it's straight. It's the type of thing that your brain has trouble making sense of. So it interprets the lines as being crooked, when they are not. The 3D glasses work in a different way. 2 different images are projected onto your retinas. Your brain properly interprets those images, as projected, and the result is a 3D picture. That's what you're arguing about. Semantics? Maybe, but it's not an illusion in the classic sense. opjose made the point that it's not an illusion in the classic sense. I think maybe you skipped over the qualifying phrase.
 
jeffpn said:
I guess if I can't reach into my tv and get Kool & the Gang's autograph right now, it's an illusion. My brain is being fooled there, too. It's like they're right here!!
Click to expand...
ya right up to the point when the CD you are tryng to get signed hits the screen
kool & the gang jeff? :p
 
The images (projected onto your retina [irrelevant]) are improperly interpreted to be one image which contains depth. The reason I haven't addressed the term classic is because it's used as an excuse for inaccuracy, not a relevant quantifying factor. :rolleyes:
 
I just realized why you're not getting this. You think that images being projected onto your retina is irrelevant. All images are projected onto your retina. That's how vision works. You are saying that one 2D image like the straight line that appears to be curved projected on both retinas is the same effect as 2 distinct 2D images projected, 1 to each retina. There is a clear difference between the effects of each type of image. Period. If you don't believe me, ask your eye doctor, or look it up.

As for Kool and the Gang, I guess you missed half time last night at the Orange Bowl.
 
Last edited:
The means of different illusions are different. In that regard stereoscopic imaging isn't the same as the means of other illusions, but that doesn't mean that it isn't used to create an illusion. There are many kinds of illusions that deceive the brain in many different ways.

I'll reiterate: In stereoscopic imaging each eye is seeing a different image which the brain inaccurately interprets as being only one image. The differences in the two images are likewise designed to inaccurately be perceived as depth.

Oxford English Reference Dictionary:

illusion 1 deception, delusion. 2 a misapprehension of the true state of affairs. 3 a the faulty perception of an external object. b an instance of this. 4 a figment of the imagination 5 = optical illusion.

optical illusion 1 a thing having an appearance so resembling something else as to deceive the eye. 2 an instance of mental misapprehension caused by this.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
the eye is just a lens

it is your brain that takes the information from your retina and trys to make sense of it ....

heres an example:

it's been proven(by nasa)

that if you were to hang upside down for an extended period of time

that after a while your brain will "flip" everything "right side up"

and even though you are still upside down every thing will look "normal"

you will see everything as if you were standing on your feet

ever after standing back up and getting back on your feet ,

it even takes a few seconds to allmost a min. for your brain to restore your "normal vison"

using 3d glasses only makes your brain "THINK" it's seeing depth

allbeit VERY convincingly

if the brain relied on the retina

as to what the world looked like

the world(everything) would look upside down AND inverted....


thats how lenses AND the human eye work ..

images coming through the eye are upsidedown and inverted on the retina

its your brain that makes the correction
as to what we perceive we are seeing

the brain just "thinks" its seeing 3d

because you have the 3d glasses on

which is giving eye two different angles
giving the ILLusion/perception of depth were there is actually none there
 
Last edited:
jeffpn said:
I just realized why you're not getting this. You think that images being projected onto your retina is irrelevant. All images are projected onto your retina. That's how vision works. You are saying that one 2D image like the straight line that appears to be curved projected on both retinas is the same effect as 2 distinct 2D images projected, 1 to each retina. There is a clear difference between the effects of each type of image. Period. If you don't believe me, ask your eye doctor, or look it up.
Click to expand...

Right, which makes also makes the statement that 3D Stereovision is a "novelty" all the more ironic.

The artificial 3D world of the simulator is projected onto our retinas via a monitor.

Current technology only produces the same image for each eye.

3D Stereovision transmits different images to each eye, in a far more natural way.... the silly glasses not-with-standing...

3D Sterovision is the "holy grail" of the movie industry, and has been extremely difficult to implement... but that is starting to change.

FYI: ESPN, The Discovery Channel, and CNN all three announced that they would all be broadcasting digital 3D channels by 2011, yesterday. About time too.... and of course 3D Blueray was announced a few months ago.
 
Wide-screen was popularized after the advent of televisions in part as a defining feature of movie theaters to maintain public interest. There was a fear (whether justified or not) that people would stop going to the movies once they had televisions.

I enjoy wide-screen and find it pleasant to watch. It can show a wider expanse while remaining close to the action, enhancing the grandeur of movies such as Spartacus.

Now that large high definition wide-screen televisions have become more prevalent, I suspect that some of this fear is once again in the back of the minds of many movie production studios. I know I've stopped going to the movies as much, though I still enjoy going occasionally. Higher quality 3D movies may very well seem like a viable feature to add to the theater going experience, which as of yet isn't prevalent in home entertainment. The irony (at least as this pertains to me) is that if this trend continues, I'll go to the movies even less, if at all. Fortunately, I don't think 3D movies will become the new standard, but rather a growing option. 3D movies have no appeal to me other than perhaps as an occasional novelty.

...

I'm not exactly sure what it is that you guys are assuming that I don't get. I'll take a stab at it though.

3D images (as in 3-D movies, comic books, etc.) are not three dimensional, they can merely appear to be three dimensional.

When you look at an object that actually is three dimensional you are accurately interpreting its depth.

When you look at stereoscopic images you inaccurately interpret the differences between the two images as depth (instead of accurately perceiving two images independent from each other, even though you do accurately* see them, albeit each with only one eye). It is through the same means of comparing the differences in the points of view of your two eyes that you perceive real depth. As I said some time ago, just because you perceive something doesn't mean that it's real. Hence, an illusion of depth.

*Relatively speaking. See post #48 for a description of how our brains interpret what our eyes see.
 
Last edited:
Too bad... you might have enjoyed Avatar in 3D, it really made a number of scenes stand out.
 
There's a few scenes that IMHO become more memorable because of 3D.

- The 3D computer displays used by the characters make more sense because of 3D Stereovision. The circular 3D display from which one character "pulls" out a "tablet" screen is a trip... I want one!

- There are a number of scenes where the principal character walks through some very tall tree branches. 3D adds to the perception that he is indeed high up and could fall easily.

- The air battle sequence with the flights through the "flying mountains". You get what is going on...


Cameron apparently worked with Peter Jackson and WETA on trying to get the little issues right with the 3D cameras.

It's not perfect ( let me know if you get a headache ), and the very first scene does unfortunately have the mandatory "Let's impress the audience with a 3D" effect, ...the droplets floating out of the screen...

But once things settle down things work a bit better.

I don't believe the directors have yet discovered what they need to do to keep the audience's brain from going into overload.

I think that with 3D Stereovision, one of the things which MUST be avoided are those 3 story tall talking heads we see in movies.

After all we don't see people that way in real life! Nor do I WANT to perceive the depth of a four foot high mole... ugh.

When the scenes are filmed in a way that people come closer to their real life proportion, you practically forget about 3D Stereo, as you should.

IMHO... It should enhance the experience, no more. If you practically forget about it, and have no headaches, they've done their job right.
 
Re-Post from Slashdot about latest 3D News

3D is not going away by any means, becoming more mainstream now and the near future then ever.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sony, IMAX, Discovery To Launch 3D TV Network |
| from the you're-our-only-hope dept. |
| posted by kdawson on Tuesday January 05, @19:32 (Television) |
| https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/10/01/05/2331255/Sony-IMAX-Discovery-To-Launch-3D-|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

adeelarshad82 writes "In a surprising endorsement for 3D display
technology, Sony Corp. of America, Discovery Communications and IMAX
Corp. have announced plans to form a [0]US television network entirely
devoted to 3D programming. The three parties have signed a letter of
intent to form the unnamed venture, which is scheduled to launch in 2012.
The new network is intended as a sort of carrot to lure buyers to
purchase 3D-enabled TVs." Reader jggimi notes NY Times coverage, which
points out that this prospective network [1]won't be the first: "Earlier
Tuesday, ESPN announced that it would start 'ESPN 3D' in June 2010. The
channel will show a minimum of 85 live 3D events during the first year."

Discuss this story at:
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10/01/05/2331255

Links:
0. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357685,00.asp
1. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/discovery-imax-sony-form-3d-television-channel/
 
Ridiculous. :(

Why not just get two HD cameras for, I don't know, $20,000 less, and make your own 3D movies?! I'm sure you could find software to do the video meshing for you.

Anyway, my wife and I are going to see Avatar 3D tonight. I'll let you guys know what I think. I'm actually looking forward to it, mostly just out of curiosity. The visuals are supposed to be breathtaking. The story, not so much...
 
Well, what can I say? I was definitely entertained. The CG was both realistic and vast yet detailed enough that you hardly noticed it. The story was fairly predictable and though there where a few cliché parts it was still presented and carried well, almost like an old mythology that everyone knows but still enjoys hearing from time to time, just retold in a very new and beautiful setting.

Concerning the 3D aspect of the film, I felt it did add to the rendering of the visual grandeur and beauty of the world, but added little to the overall story. I did enjoy seeing it in 3D for the experience. There was one moment where I felt the urge to shoo away a fly in the corner of my vision while watching the characters in the middle of the screen.

So, did it add to the movie overall? I'd have to say yes, though I most likely wouldn't choose to see it in 3D again, because I found it somewhat distracting at parts, and oddly layered, almost as if there were different frame rates used in different layers of depth creating a slight stuttering effect in parts of the shots (this could be because of the method of 3D used overlapping the normal frame rate of the film). The out of focus effect on some of the layers seemed a little excessive and to a degree actually distracted me from what was in focus.

The movie didn't give me a headache, but afterwords I did have a very slight issue with depth perception, or more accurately, relearning how to focus my eyes on things at different distances. But like I said, only slightly. I have very good eyesight, so someone with less acute eyesight might not have noticed this. However, my wife who is moderately nearsighted said she did stumble a little after leaving the theater. So, who knows?

So yes, I'm glad I saw it in 3D once, but I probably wouldn't choose to see it in 3D again, and I would still rather not see most movies in 3D, though it has improved greatly since the days of the red and blue lens glasses. The glasses we used were the RealD 3D glasses which are circularly polarized.

Light and other electromagnetic waves have a polarity that can be filtered out depending on the angle along the longitudinal axis at which they hit the polarized lenses, making only the desired polarized portion of the screen viewable to either the left or right eye.
 
Last edited:
"The CG was both realistic and vast yet detailed enough that you hardly noticed it. "

Yup, and that's exactly the same level 3D Stereovision has to get to.

We are not there yet, and I believe the directors and cinematographers do not quite understand how to achieve this yet.... but they are finally starting to learn.

The other things you mentioned are also indicative of the lack of understanding on how to do all of this well. I said before that the directors need to avoid switching the viewer's viewpoint dramatically in scale. For 3D to work and not to drive us nuts, they have to gradually shift from a talking head to a horizon or panorama. As cinema people often do now, they too quickly shift from one thing to another, which works for 2D, but with 3D it throws our natural "process" off, WAY off.

The lack of headache you report at least points to them FINALLY getting inter-ocular / parallax right... and it's taken MANY YEARS for them to finally get it!

IMHO Ultimately 3D Stereovision will come into it's own when we can finally get rid of the silly glasses and do so cheaply.

There are up and coming technologies that may make this possible, and some of the examples I've seen have been amazing, though with flaws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top