P3D Re: Digital Video and Nu-View

[Oliver Dean <3d-image@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Harold Baize wrote:
> Use caution and test digital cameras before you buy if you
> intend to use them for alternate field stereo video. I bought 
> a Sony TRV103 Digital8 and returned it the next day for a 
> Hi8 model because it did not work with the Nu-View adapter. 
> Christoph Bungert explains why in his review of the Nu-View. 
> 
> I quote:
>  
> >"...[digital uses] progressive scan CCD. The camcorder plays to the 
> >rules of the current TV-systems by recording 50-60 half-frames a 
> >second, but it seems to scan the two half-frames (which represent 
> >one full-frame) at the same fraction of time, thus eliminating the 
> >usual time-gap between half-frames. 
> 
> I still wonder if the TRV103 might have worked. I really like the 
> advantages of digital video. Sony does not provide detailed technical 
> information on how their CCDs aquire an image or which models use an 
> averaging or progressive scan technology. I think it would be good for 
> 3D-Video, Inc. to provide a list of camcorders that are know to be 
> compatible, and a list of known incompatibles. It might save 3-D 
> consumers time and money. I must admit though, I e-mailed 3-D Video 
> and they warned me that the TRV103 might not work, but I still 
> wanted to try for myself.
> 
> Harold

Harold and Christoph --  I can only say, "?????????????????????"  I have
just now subscribed to the list and have missed the earlier part of the
thread, but I have a TRV103 with the Nu-View adapter and it works just
fine!!!  I play back the tape through the AV outputs on the camera to my
old 27 inch Sony TV, and the stereo is excellent!  The only time I got
results similar to Christoph's was when I FORGOT TO TURN ON THE NU-VIEW!
(For those not familiar with a Nu-View adapter, it requires its own
battery and off-on switch in order to provide the alternating right-left
views in synch with the video field scans.)  Is it possible you left the
Nu-View on for a long period of time and depleted the single AAA cell it
uses for power before testing it with the TRV103?

I can certainly understand how Christoph came to the conclusion he did
from the results that he got, but with all due respect, NTSC is NTSC,
and any camera that records images intended for display in an NTSC TV
system must record the fields in succession, not progressively, in order
for movement of images to appear correctly. "Digital" does NOT
necessarily imply "progressive scan;"  progressive scan ia a non
compatible improvement that requires twice the bandwidth of an
equivalent interlaced image. 

If progressively scanned alternating stereo images are made at 60 images
per second, to display them in NTSC would require conversion to the
interlaced image format, which would mean discarding the odd lines or
the even lines (alternately) of each progressive scan in order to create
each single interlaced field.  This would, in theory, still work for
stereo, albeit somewhat inefficiently, if the proper alternations were
maintained in the conversion.

Sorry your test of the TRV103 didn't work -- sounds like something
wasn't set up quite right, because my experience has been quite
favorable, so far, when I remember to turn on the Nu-View and turn it
off at the end of the session!  

The TRV103 is quite nice -- my only objection to it is that it does not
have a manual white balance for daylight.  I am still experimenting with
it, though, and the "Sun and Moon" program may approximate a stable
white balance for daylight.  I'll make a more detailed report in the
near future.  The "Pastel" effect is awesome in stereo!

Cordially,
Oliver Dean


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 3442
***************************