Stereoscope: Why??? Holograms: Please!

Hello everybody,

It seems the industry is pushing 3D (stereoscopic) film. We have seen more and more 3D films in the theaters, ESPN has jumped on board and there are 3D channels coming out. We know you have to have those ridiculous glasses (one could not pick a standard combination of lenses; polarized, cyan/red, magenta/green, blah blah blah) and that's not all. In order to see 3D, you have to have a high def monitor or a 3D television (both where you need to wear those stupid glasses). Also, when watching 3D, it is important to follow the focus of the camera or else you will constantly have to readjust your eyes (as if we knew where the focus of the camera is going). Sure it all looks fancy and impressive but I mean come on! If I wanted to watch something in 3D, can't it be done in a hologram so I can find my own focus!? THAT'S the way it should be going.

If movies were done in holograms now, we wouldn't need to wear glasses. Our eyes wouldn't be strained and the industry could save a lot of money in research and development so the crap we'd have to buy for that wouldn't cost so much!

Here here???

Sorry about my rant.

And if this isn't fan film/ fan audio & SciFi 3D friendly, please keep it on this thread because this is where the discussion matters most out of any other forums on theforce.net.

 

Totally agree, we should stop wasting money on research and development and just show movies in holograms.

 

And holograms aren't necessarily like what you see in Star Wars. Let's see... there was that one box thing that had games in it that used holograms. I'm going to find the link.


THESE kinds of holograms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvCHHUN8nnE

 

I was being sarcastic. There's no estimating how many thousands of times more money has yet to go into hologram research on the scale you're talking about compared to what has been put into polarized stereoscopic technology.

The iPhone app isn't a hologram, it's a pre-rendered room that has been saved from every conceivable angle, with the incidental user viewing angle being simulated by motion in the gyroscope. It wouldn't work with a static screen.

 

But they did stereoscope in the 80's. They don't need to do anymore research. They are just capitalizing on an old idea and wasting time and resources. So the money they should be putting into research and development NOW is holograms. I remember baseball card that from whatever angle you were at it showed a different aspect. Couldn't there be some sort of sensor on your TV that found your location and gave you the proper perspective? Like maybe something is hidden from a viewer on one side of the screen but visible to another person, that way your experience every time you watch the movie is different.

Oh yeah, patent pending btw. lol

 

Yes, because there's a transcendent standard that we managed to reach decades ago, and then research stops. Plus it's was exactly what we're seeing now with Avatar and everything else, so clearly technology hasn't gone anywhere since then.

You don't know what you're talking about. Period.

 

BDP, you'll get a kick out of this.

 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/hologram10.htm

ignore the part about the drivers license but focus on reflection holograms and transmission holograms.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/hologram1.htm

All that needs to be done is to capture the holograms and make tv sets that allow you to actually see the hologram in it's 3D form wherever you move. So the money going into making 3D tv's (which the technology may have been transcendent technology in the 80's) should be going to making the transcendent technology for today. I do know what I'm talking about thanks.

 

Aw this is amazing. Thanks for this!!!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=XgrGjJUBF_I&feature=channel

this is also impressive.

 

ALSO even if you aren't necessarily the person controlling the "remote" you still get the 3D characteristic! WITHOUT wearing glasses!

 

No, sir. You do see it moving in an odd way, but it only evokes a sense of 3D from the perspective of the person with the goggles.

 

right as he said, but I meant the XYZ planes exist so everything still shifts. But the real effect is for the person with the sensor.

 

What would be really cool is to combine that method with stereoscopic 3D.

 

...why would that be any cooler than either option?

 

Cause then it'd really look like you're seeing into the screen.

 

Because while the moving physical image is a stronger imitation of the visual side of the 3D effect, the stereoscopic effect creates a more noticeable physical effect (You know that whole making the brain actually feel the 3D). By combining them you get the stronger visual sense without the strain that stereoscopic "supposedly" creates (I've never felt the strain of it, so i can't attest to it) as well as the stronger feeling that the stereoscopic creates.

 

I disagree, on a practical level. Any benefit coming from what you just said isn't worth the price of it's installation.

Aside from that, I don't think it'd actually have much benefit. You're not adding anything by using the Johnny Lee 3D system in that scenario.

 

Teague, you are missing the point.

It would be FREAKIN COOL!

Thats all we're discussing.

 

Well, we did in fact start on the subject of practicality of one method of 3D emulation over another. But I'll accept your changing of the point here, and maintain that it won't actually make it cooler.

Let's separate the methodology for the purpose of conversation. Anaglyphic and circularly polarized stereoscopic 3D works by presenting two different pictures to your brain at once, and tricks your brain into thinking it's 3D by way of emulating the way eyes work. One sees one thing, the other sees the same thing from about four inches away. This means that even sitting completely still, your brain is filling in depth data because the two eyes are seeing things from a different angle at all times. Duh.

Head tracking works by emulating the way moving works, effectively changing your entire viewing angle on whatever the subject is. Both eyes are receiving the same image at all times, and the image rotates around a point halfway between its camera and its subject. If your head stays still, you perceive no 3D effect at all.

On a practical level, this breaks down in two different ways for theater viewing. One, unless there's only one person watching the movie, the method is useless. You would have to have every member of the audience viewing their own special projection calibrated to their own head movements. Two, even if you did that, your head doesn't move very much in a movie theater unless you are your mother and I am me.

 

Yes, but we never discussing usage in a theater setting (Seeing as the very concept of the Johnny Lee system is restricted to a single viewer by it's very design), we are solely talking about a viewer usage. And seeing as the filmic useage of this technique would be nearly impossible (But it would be kinda cool I guess), we must presume we are discussing its usage in video games (As the johnny Lee video demonstrates).

So, in the context of a video game set up, we will not need to worry about multiple viewers and the viewer will have complete freedom movement.

Last time I checked, in real life, we have both eyes and a head. Therefore I must return my original point, it is simply an additional layer of realism. Both the visual (Head movement) and the "feeling" (for lack of better term), the eyes.

 

I'll grant you that it would be cool for video games, if you'll grant me that it's impractical as all get-out for movies.

 

Oh yah totally, I thought we were all just presuming inherently that the concept would be useless for movies. My bad I guess.

 

Oh yeah, I didn't mean for movies. I was initially saying it'd be cool in response to seeing that test with the targets in 3D space.

 

No no no no no no no no no! When you're using this method you wont need it to be stereoscopic because the depth and 3D world is controlled by your position. Who knows? What if people weren't actually sitting down all the time watching movies instead interacting with them?


(may I remind you this thread is to find alternatives to those terrible 3D glasses. I dont want to wear glasses!)