Beatles 2.0 in Danger of Forming?

[sleepy]

yeah two point perspective drawing I learned in art class over a thousand years ago, so I don't quite remember exactly how to use it, but it uses two dots spaced horizontally and *I think* you align a ruler to the dots to restrict your drawing action to the "sight line" represented by the dots.

Maybe Wikipedia has the correct answer?

Is there an echo in here??

 

[sleepy]

Yay! Last time I checked, they didn't have an article, but now...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)#Two-point_perspective

Wow, those animated 3D gifs are using "the flicky box effect" from the 1980's...

http://news.slashdot.org/story/04/05/25/1439206/dvd-player-displays-2d-movies-in-3d

Some years ago, there was an episode of "That's Incredible" on which was displayed a system that showed 3D on regular TVs, without glasses, and the crazy thing was that you could close one eye, and still see the 3D effect! It was a box, that sat between the camera and the recording/broadcast equipment, and the resulting image was interesting, but it worked!

The image shown would "vibrate", it moved wonky, but there definitely was depth to the image. You could record the image, and play it back, and it was still there - a form of 3D that required no changes in broadcast or recording equipment, no glasses needed to view, and no special viewing system to watch - in short, it allowed 3D to be created by anyone, to be viewed by anyone (as long as they had one working eyeball!), on any standard video equipment. I have never seen this technology demonstrated anywhere else, nor did the company which presented its work (along with video clips that were fun to watch) go on to produce these boxes for sale - the technology and the company just seemed to "vanish" (is it any wonder?).

The closest I have been able to find about how this technology works can be seen here [well.com]. Please note that the site has "not safe for work" imagery on it...

This site's images, along with another poster's (below) comments about "temporal 3D" via running two movies out of sync, basically gives me a clue as to what they were originally doing:

I believe (now) that the box was somehow delaying the signal, every other frame, then interpolating those frames in/among the regular video frames and sending them down the wire. This isn't a very good explanation - basically, they were doing a combination of the temporal viewing with the "flicker GIF" of two stereo views (but without stereo, just time between the two frames) to generate the image. At the time, it must have been really expensive (for the RAM to buffer the image, etc) - although I wonder if they could have been de-interlacing frames and sending/reconstituting the frames by double-lacing the de-interlaced frames to make up the lost pixels, then showing each one (because each field of the frame would be out of sync by 1/15 second - maybe enough time to do the temporal 3D? - and it wouldn't require more than simple electronics rather than RAM buffering).

Aside from the flicker 3D images on the web (ie, those two different angle 3D animated GIF's like I noted above) - does anybody else remember seeing that episode of "That's Incredible", or anything else about the device? The episode was on in the mid-1980's or so...

Well he almost got it right. The box alternated the left and right frames of a 3d video for a 2D output, just like the animated gifs do, though the gifs appear aligned so that they also take advantage of the Pulfrich Effect. At least that's what I told them to try back then, just about the same time I suggested something called "3D shutter glasses"...some longhair professors were given the credit for "the flicky box effect". It wasn't my name, that's all I know...

I was talking about this fact just the other day, how the 3D movies are shot with two cameras to produce the stereo interoccular spacing needed for a 3D effect...but they are not aligned to intersect what should be a window frame common to both left and right views. The 3D movies' window view is not scaled by a common "window" lens.

You can see the common intersect value at work with those animations...how they rotate around a common axis.

And The Pulfrich Effect for 3D is a misnomer. In his time there was No Way that the Effect on video would be known by him.
Video did not exist then, and movies, well The Pulfrich Effect doesn't work with the slower, less dynamic contrasts and frame rates of movies. I know because when I discovered the effect in 1983 while watching the t.v. one day with my dark sunglasses covering only one eye (while being bored), I immediately tried it at the cinema while watching "The Road Warrior", I was so exited.

It didn't work! It only works when watching t.v.!
So my folks took that too!
They ought to call it "The sleepy Effect".

Here's an example of Pulfrich, though I'm not seeing great depth-of-field in this example. All you need is a dark pair of sunglasses, or a piece of clear, dark plastic or glass over your right eye. Don't cover your left eye as this example moves from left-to-right.

There have been much better working examples of "The sleepy Effect" on t.v.
Third Rock From the Sun used it for a special 3D broadcast.
You can use it on any t.v. show or movie on t.v.
When the motion moves left-to-right, cover your right eye with the dark see-through glass, lens, sunglasses, etc.,
and when the motion moves from right-to-left, then cover your left eye with it. Amber shades might not work as well as blue or dark gray shades.

Demonstration of the Pulfrich 3D Effect - YouTube

 

[sleepy]

The animated gifs also increase depth *slightly* with a dark lens over one eye, though here it can be either eye since the motion is back and forth.

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

wow, that's a lot of homework. i'm starting with the whole perspective article, and realising how much i still have a certain learning problem- i.e., understanding a concept in practice vs. understanding a technical description of that process. sometimes such just doesn't matter, but sometimes such is necessary to get to the next level of a concept. this stuff always gave me a lot of trouble in school.

as bilbo famously squeaked: "time! ...time!"

and more caffeine. :)

 

[sleepy]

You mean having trouble understanding the technical descriptions,
so you just go and do it instead of trying to read the book?

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

well, take this from the very beginning of the entry as an example:

Foreshortened: the size of an object's dimensions along the line of sight are relatively shorter than dimensions across the line of sight

my first reaction is- what the eff are they using those two words for? their meaning is almost interchangeable, so what are they actually trying to say? as written, sentences like that make my brain hit a wall.

later on i realised they are trying to indicate X and Y dimensions, with the increased visual area being given to the side that's nearer. or something like that. then i try to rethink the way i approach looking at a piece and break it down in to "along" and "across" planes and analyse from there.

it's like translating understandings from one area of the brain to another. or maybe it is -precisely- that. just that this kind of thing is extremely common across texts and across subjects, which as i say has always slowed me down to a crawl as a learner.

i was doing geometric perspective drawings in middle school, having them included in student best-of art shows, but never conceptualised vanishing points, two-point perspectives, and so forth. the monkey brain was handling all that, i guess.

 

[sleepy]

I lost track of the thread Ike.

"Across" *I think* is horizontal.

"Along" *I think* is along the Sight Lines provided by "the points" to the distance...the "depth".

Does that sound right?

 

[Shockman]

First, saying the size of the dimensions, is like saying the wideness of the width, or the highness of the height.

Second, 'are' is wrong, as subject, as it would instead be appear, but correct for the medium, and in this case.

Third, somethings are more understandable if not foreshortened, obviously. He probably nailed the subject, before writing such a line.

As for the two words in question, sleepy is close, actually dead on if the line of sight is to the horizon, but in this context the horizon is a line perpendicular to the line of sight, it could be looking up the side of a building, or down a well for examples. Along could be called in, or more precise on, but could be parallels within the frame. Across could be perpendicular, across does not need to mean directly across, and the crossing points position on the line of site is important in drawing a vanishing point. It could be a train track crossing a road, at 80 degrees. The trig would tell you where to place the point, but training for good guesses is the way.

I have more trouble drawing a two frame running animation of a block man that this kid of stuff. It's math, but it does not have to be precise. It's easy enough to adjust it to look right, when you know the concept.

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

Thx, fellas. Been a distracted week, but I'll get back to the homework soon. Maybe we can do so.e kind of pass-it-around art piece for fun. Pass-it-around Arne tune would have been cool, too, but I'm not set up for digital music ATM.

-cell post

 

[sleepy]

That's okay Ike.

I left out "the Lennon". It sure hums nicer than the demo.