Re: SL3D per John B

[P3D John Bercovitz <bercov@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Larry B writes:
> I remember this discussion and appreciate getting to see it reviewed here.
> However this description doesn't at all describe how the TV broadcast
> industry would use such a technique to send the combined left and right
> images across cables or current video routes *the same as a standard
> flattie*. 

I was following Paul T's suggestion:
> Greg Marshall courageously queries:
>> What is "Single Lens 3d"?
> This was a topic of intense debate on P3D when I was a very green
> newbie.  I never did understand much, if any, of it.  But I can
> assure you that a search of the archives for "SL3D" will turn up
> plenty of discussion.  It might be useful, however, if 1 (one)
> representative from each faction presented a concise synopsis of
> their point of view.

So, I was only describing SL3D from the conventional viewpoint 
and I figured Bill would describe it from the inventor's viewpoint.  
I was not attempting to address the broadcast issue since that 
wasn't asked about in Greg Marshall's post.  Sorry.  I could 
speculate on what Bill meant.  Not sure that would be fair, though,
since he probably wants to speak for himself and not have me
muddying his waters.

But what the heck.  8-)  Blue sky personal speculation follows:
If I were to try to do SL3D on the TV, I would use LC shutters with 
Bill's polarizing D-filters to alternate frames onto the vidicon 
(Oops!  Do they still use vidicons?  Am I hopelessly archaic? 8-).  
I would then decode with shutter glasses.  Without the decoding 
glasses, the image would look like it was taken with the aperture 
wide open except for some tendency towards fuzzied image points.  
Of course wide open isn't very wide on a TV camera because focal 
lengths are short because CCDs are small.  So from my understanding, 
the stereobase would be very small and so there wouldn't be much 
parallactic disparity to work with.  So you wouldn't have much stereo 
and you wouldn't have too fuzzy an image to look at without decoder 
glasses.  Looks like I've just come to the same conclusions Larry B did.

I just thought of something.  You could use a lens with a large 
aperture, say a lens for a Hassie, and then demagnify its image down
onto the CCD.  That would get you back some modest amount of stereobase.
It would also exacerbate the problem of fuzzy images.  Am I kidding
myself or would this work?

John B


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