[opendtv] Re: 3-D TVs for industry: $64B; health research: zero
- From: "John Shutt" <shuttj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 23:46:11 -0500
Have you ever seen those "3D" images that look at first glance like just a
pattern repeated over the entire page, but if you stare at it long enough, you
eventually can see a 3D image within? I believe Magic Eye is one type of the
images I am describing. They're hard to see at first, because your eye needs
to focus at a close distance, but your eyes need to converge at a point much
further away. It takes a while for your brain to decouple left eye-right eye
convergence with focal distance.
This may also be the cause of some people's discomfort with 3D movies. Their
eyes are clearly focused at whatever distance they are from the screen, but the
3D depth may not be set at that eye convergence angle for that distance.
This is of course exacerbated with small screens viewed at a closer distance.
You may be seated at the same number of picture heights away from the screen in
a large theater and seated at your laptop, but your eyes are converged and
focused at two different angles, giving your brain different starting points to
"decode" the 3D being viewed.
Is this the difficulty you speak of when trying to create one 3D program to be
viewed on vastly different screen?
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Schubin
So any complaints should
go to the broadcaster of the 3D program, or the producer of the DVD/Blu-ray
disc. They should quickly learn to produce with the optimum amount of
depth.
A tricky proposition when their broadcasts may be seen on screens ranging
from one-inch to 152 inches and at a very broad range of viewing distances.
Other related posts:
