Back in the 50s and 60s film makers decided that it might be pretty cool to start making 3D films. So they did- and everyone started to go the the movies and wear funky multi-coloured glasses and get freaked out by monsters jumping out at them. But, then, the film-makers stopped making 3D films. I guess it was because colour films were more popular than 3D films, and its pretty tricky to get Glorious Technicolor(R) when all your lines are surrounded by a red and blue haze. Or, it could be that you ended up looking like these freaks.
What a shame.
I imagine, 50 years ago, when TVs first started getting popular, that people thought that by 2006 we'd be immersed in spectacular triple dimesional virtual realities like the holodeck on StarTrek. Instead the best that the BBC (or Sky, for that matter) can do is offer us hundreds of David Dickinson in something called 'High Definition'. I feel robbed.
So, what happened to our fantastic 3D experiences?? Well, I remember, in the 80's and early 90s those huge helmets with 2 screens in them were pretty popular. But it turned out that, not only did they let immerse you in 3D-VR, they also had a tendency to immerse your feet in the last meal you ate.
But, wait, do not give up all hopes. Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you Integral Imaging, and this shit is clever (even Craig didn't believe me on this one!).
The key to getting realistic 3D images is getting as many cues right as possible- basically, tricking the brain into thinking something is true. There's a number of cues for 3D vision, but the main ones are:
Of course, TVs and movies use the top 3 cues very well. But on that last one, they are pretty weak. So, the trick is to get different images to the two eyes at the same time (hence the glasses and the headsets). This is what Integral Imaging (II) is good at.
II uses lots of lenses. Shine light from a distant object (so distant that the light waves are effectively parrallel) through a lens and you will get an image of that distant object on the focal plane of the lens. Conversely, put an image on the focal plane of a lens, and you will get parallel light rays coming out. When your eyes look at the light from the lens, that light will come from a single point of the image. Move your eye a little, and you will see light from a slightly different point of the same image. So, your two eyes, if open at the same time will see two very slightly different points of the original image. If you are really clever about how you make the original image (and these guys are) then you can send your two eyes exactly the right combination of light, that your brain will think that its coming from a 3D object.
Now, this is pretty crap if you only use 1 lens. But, if you use thousand upon thousands of lenses, you can effectively make up a whole '3D painting' from these lens-image combinations. Even better, all you have to do is make the thousands of images moveable, and hey presto we've got 3D TV that doesn't require fancy glasses or makes you feel sick.
Clearly, it would be great if I could show you the effect of II, but, with your crappy 2D screens, it just ain't gunna work. I did see a movie once where the camera moved around the image giving the impression it was 3D, and that looked pretty cool, but google doesn't want to find it for me again. So, sorry about that. I'm just looking forward to walking into Dixons one day and seeing a kick-ass 60" 3D screen showing the latest release.
What a shame.I imagine, 50 years ago, when TVs first started getting popular, that people thought that by 2006 we'd be immersed in spectacular triple dimesional virtual realities like the holodeck on StarTrek. Instead the best that the BBC (or Sky, for that matter) can do is offer us hundreds of David Dickinson in something called 'High Definition'. I feel robbed.
So, what happened to our fantastic 3D experiences?? Well, I remember, in the 80's and early 90s those huge helmets with 2 screens in them were pretty popular. But it turned out that, not only did they let immerse you in 3D-VR, they also had a tendency to immerse your feet in the last meal you ate.
But, wait, do not give up all hopes. Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you Integral Imaging, and this shit is clever (even Craig didn't believe me on this one!).
The key to getting realistic 3D images is getting as many cues right as possible- basically, tricking the brain into thinking something is true. There's a number of cues for 3D vision, but the main ones are:
- Size: This model cow is close by, that real one is far away. Nearby...Far away.
- Occlusion: If something is in front of another object, it tends to block it out.
- Perspective: Parallel lines meet at the horizon.
- Stereopsis: Our two eyes see 3D objects from slightly different angles.
Of course, TVs and movies use the top 3 cues very well. But on that last one, they are pretty weak. So, the trick is to get different images to the two eyes at the same time (hence the glasses and the headsets). This is what Integral Imaging (II) is good at.
II uses lots of lenses. Shine light from a distant object (so distant that the light waves are effectively parrallel) through a lens and you will get an image of that distant object on the focal plane of the lens. Conversely, put an image on the focal plane of a lens, and you will get parallel light rays coming out. When your eyes look at the light from the lens, that light will come from a single point of the image. Move your eye a little, and you will see light from a slightly different point of the same image. So, your two eyes, if open at the same time will see two very slightly different points of the original image. If you are really clever about how you make the original image (and these guys are) then you can send your two eyes exactly the right combination of light, that your brain will think that its coming from a 3D object.
Now, this is pretty crap if you only use 1 lens. But, if you use thousand upon thousands of lenses, you can effectively make up a whole '3D painting' from these lens-image combinations. Even better, all you have to do is make the thousands of images moveable, and hey presto we've got 3D TV that doesn't require fancy glasses or makes you feel sick.
Clearly, it would be great if I could show you the effect of II, but, with your crappy 2D screens, it just ain't gunna work. I did see a movie once where the camera moved around the image giving the impression it was 3D, and that looked pretty cool, but google doesn't want to find it for me again. So, sorry about that. I'm just looking forward to walking into Dixons one day and seeing a kick-ass 60" 3D screen showing the latest release.
