Re: Broadcast SL3D

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sat, 24 May 1997
>From: P3D William Carter writes:
>............... Without special hardware, SL3D is
>indistinguishable from a flattie.

*****  Enough folks just don't have the hardware, yet...

>................
>Single lens has an (nearly) infinitely divisible baseline. 

*****  Infinitely divisible between 2 inches and 0? That's not sufficient.
Does the viewer determine the separation? Whatever you can do with one lens,
it can be done better and with a greater range of application using two
lenses. Whatever you are doing after the camera, could be processed from two
images before transmission, so no need to be stuck with one lens. If one
camera can record everything in front of it, so can two cameras, twice as well.

>It's much like a
>hologram. If, for instance, a display detects your position, it can deliver
>full head motion parallax. The single lens stereo camera records everything
>in front of it, including depth..........................

*****  Holograms, head tracking displays, and all with a 2D image? It sounds
like you are dreaming! I'd like to see a diagram and full description of
this *new* type of SL3D. I remember a thread a couple months back about SL3D
and there wasn't any part of it that appeared to provide what you are
talking about here, or my memory of it is horribly incomplete.... It still
sounds like you are mixing apples and oranges. To me SL3D is a reference to
image capture techniques, not a broadcast method. How do you broadcast a
hologram with a 2D image? What is the cost of this *dream system*?

There has been discussion of a system that uses motion parallax to produce a
kind of stereo 3D from an ordinary video stream, viewable with LCS glasses,
but if the motion is stopped or insufficient, the 3D is missing. I don't
know that I would describe it as SL3D though that is what it amounts to.
It's far from holographic. It may be better than Pulfrich but not as good as
a 2 camera system and the upcoming 3DHDTV available within a few years. I
don't know what this system costs though. I'll stick to two-eye artifacts...
and two-camera inputs, they are very useful!

>
>>If you have a system that requires shuttered glasses, 
>>it uses or provides two images.
>
>Not so. Think of it this way, Larry. If one could broadcast a hologram, and
>it was right there on your set, you could look at it with one eye, or two
>eyes. Not because it was from two images, which it isn't. But, because you
>have a maximum of two eyes. That's a human factors issue.

*****  No, I can't accept that description. LCS shutter glasses separate an
image stream into to two separate images which are sequentially presented to
each eye. If there is stereo depth available from this combination, that is
a stereo image, not a hologram image. There has to be a definition of which
image is presented to each opening of the shutter glasses and corresponding
left or right. If it's the same 2D image, there won't be any stereo
available. If a stereo image is being processed from a 2D image stream using
motion parallax, that's different but still not holographic, nor is it
always an ideal arrangement of depth factors. It could be drastically
improved with the use of two input cameras too!

>
>I believe that if there were a general awareness of SL3D, we would have
>full-time 3-D T.V.

*** What system are you really talking about here? Who makes it and how much
does it cost? 

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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