Alaskan 3D tape

[P3D Jim Roberts <xjim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>right away I realized that this wasn't pulfrich effect - static
>shots exhibited depth. Shots of bears had really good depth, one
>charge looked like it was going to come right out of the set,
>they also had underwater shots of salmon swimming up the river
>and the TV set looked like a fish tank - excellent effect.

>But I am confused, this technology for 3D video works - without
>shutters, and the video looks sharp without the glasses. Have
>any of our European members heard of "NewOptix" or Telecast
>International? Or perhaps (if the camera they showed was the
>camera they used) our SL3D experts could discuss the potential
>for SL3D video? And, if this was only pulfrich effect, how come
>static shots exhibited depth? Can Ya'll help clear up these
>questions, or at least share medications ;-) :-) ;-)


Well Dave,  I'm sure a ton of other folks will answer this too, but
what you have is pure Pulfrich.  Those 'static' shots you described
were not really static, though the camera may have been in a fixed
position.  There is still relative lateral movement between background
and foreground elements, which is the key to making Pulfrich work.
Your noting that no depth was evident during a freeze-frame is also
evidence of this.  

Pulfrich can give great perception of depth, but it tends to exhibit 
the cardboard cutout phenomenon, since the relative motion is the
sole cause of the stereopsis (after the dark-induced delay.)  For
example, if you were to film Dolly Parton against a moving background,
Dolly would stand out from the background when viewed through Pulfrich 
glasses, but her prominent attributes would not appear to stand out
from the rest of her, because of the lack of relative motion.  (I hope
I haven't offended anyone with my example, but it was the first thing
that came to mind - I guess it shows where my mind usually is . . .)

Hope this has clarified things a mite.

Jim


------------------------------