Films converted to 3D - Possible?

[alfaniner]

Oh man, opening up a can of worms. I am red-green color-blind also, and really always had a problem with 3-D glasses. However, several years ago I bought a 3-D camera that took and printed actual 3-D pictures that could be seen by anyone. Looking at the frames of film, it really clarified how the 3D process really works.

You could get simulated 3D by taking the two extreme pics, and creating an animated gif which looks slightly 3D on a web page (I have seen this done.)

Even before that, I found I could take my own 3D pics by taking one picture, stepping aside a few inches (or feet -- if the pic was a large landscape or something) and taking another one, as long as the subject was static. The end result -- if you placed the two pics side-by-side, and could create the "sausage between your fingers" effect, you would get a 3D pic.

I don't recall how I found this out, but it was well before the onset of web pages and such. If I get time I may post some of those pics here...

 

[Mercutio]

Oh man, opening up a can of worms. I am red-green color-blind also, and really always had a problem with 3-D glasses. However, several years ago I bought a 3-D camera that took and printed actual 3-D pictures that could be seen by anyone. Looking at the frames of film, it really clarified how the 3D process really works.

Those are the prints I can't stand....but yes, they work by creating disparate images for the two eyes; I just don't like this particular method.

You could get simulated 3D by taking the two extreme pics, and creating an animated gif which looks slightly 3D on a web page (I have seen this done.)

Is this done by parallax? I have not seen it, so would greatly appreciate a link if you can come up with one!

Even before that, I found I could take my own 3D pics by taking one picture, stepping aside a few inches (or feet -- if the pic was a large landscape or something) and taking another one, as long as the subject was static. The end result -- if you placed the two pics side-by-side, and could create the "sausage between your fingers" effect, you would get a 3D pic.

I have done this too--too bad it does not work for any image in motion. (The "sausage between your fingers" is a great way to explain "magic eye" posters, BTW, and it is a neat demonstration of how stereoscope pics work)

I don't recall how I found this out, but it was well before the onset of web pages and such. If I get time I may post some of those pics here...

Please do!

 

[wahrheit]

Would you mind if I used this description in my sensation/perception lectures?

What you are describing is the depth cue "motion parallax". Anyone can experience what you are talking about by picking a scene with some objects at various distances away (I have my students hold their hands in front of them and look variously at their hand and at me in front of the room) and close one eye, then noticing the relative movement of objects as they move their heads slightly left and right. Focus on the near object, and distant objects move; focus on the distant object, and near objects move. The nearer the object, the more movement. And yes, it is the same information as retinal disparity, but presented in a different way, and yes, isn't it cool what the brain can do!?!?! (BTW, this is the depth-perception method used by owls, which is why they do that cool head-bobbing thing.)

I have heard from multiple sources, but never remember the precise name, that there was (is?) an NFL wide receiver who is also monocular, and uses this cue to judge how to catch the ball. The man makes his living using depth perception--which tells you that your one-eyed version is every bit as functional as binocular vision.

Um...sorry, though, the 3D films won't work for you. (oh...not that it matters, but Mrs. Merc has the same cyclopian characteristic as you do. Did you have an undiagnosed "lazy eye"?)

And lastly...of course I would call what you do 3D!

Almost missed your reply. Sure you can use my description in your lectures, I'd be honored And thanks for mentioning the owls, last time I heard about this depth-perception method is was hens

Don't know about the NFL guy, but if you throw an object (unless it's an ambos or similar) in my direction I can usually catch it one-handed while sitting on a chair. I'm certainly not a sports guy, but I would agree that one-eyed vision is almost perfect in this when trained.

Let me know if you need any more detail in my description, e.g. how I learned that I only used one eye in the first place: I was doing a who-can-brake-at-the-latest-moment contest with my older brothers. One after the other we were driving a bike down a ramp into our house's garage. I hit the wall without braking at all. Not badly injured, but my parents thought they should have my eyes checked by a doctor... Don't ask me why I didn't realize myself and earlier that I had only one good eye. The other one is not "dark", it's just low in resolution and out of focus. Not sure I can translate "lazy eye" correctly, but if it is this "the part of the brain that controls vision favors one eye over the other" thing, then that's me.