"3D" Walkthrough: use your Red/Cyan 3D Glasses...

Sounds good. Thanx Max.

Yes and no.. haha My good old library got them, but was adjusted to fit the scene and removed some bits and bobs, i didnt spend much time on modeling really, it was an excercise of depth,.. if you ever need bones (in modeling term that is), let us know, i'll fling some,..

Huh, I'll have to check that Panaonic out.. sounds like a mega TV. Either way, I like the concept and modeling. Did you model up the bones from a physical reference?

Also, you mentioned that the glasses are a "solution," but they are more of a bandaid since they do not address the fact that the focal point and convergence point are at different points in space.

i thought glasses (active or passive) does the job well translating the depth created by the fact that the focal point and convergence point are at different points in space?

Just because TV manufacturers and NVIDIA are throwing researchers at sterioscopic, it does not validate the shoddy products they have manufactured. These products are: 3d tvs, the Nintendo 3ds, etc...

I was thinking like this until one day i went to Panasonic shop (not that i suggest this brand), i was blown away with this 62" 3D tv playing Avatar (active shutter), and was watching for a good half hour and was okay afterwards. But then again, apparently, due to the fact that people are different, there are some of us that cant see in 3D no matter what,.. surely all this will be moving forward to the better, some would push their boundaries, some would just happy with what they can do now,...

all I know is that it gives me a headache... so I'm never using it... and I think many will follow for similar reasons. Also, you mentioned that the glasses are a "solution," but they are more of a bandaid since they do not address the fact that the focal point and convergence point are at different points in space. Just because TV manufacturers and NVIDIA are throwing researchers at sterioscopic, it does not validate the shoddy products they have manufactured. These products are: 3d tvs, the Nintendo 3ds, etc... If you have played a 3ds for more than 4 minutes, you start to feel like something's wrong. The "sweet spot" on these products is another annoying issue alltogether. I think true holographic will be the answer to the 3d problem, we're just not there yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypd5txtGdGw This gives some idea as to what the brain "sees" your experience and knowledge makes up a greater part of the image. Walter Murch is quoting based on his experience of a moving image that is not in the viewers control. Interactive objects do not have to touch side of screen as he talks about. He doesn't mention how much your brain adds to any image at all and any theory that ignores a major factor surely has flaws. Depth information is the missing link with most imagery and the technology will eventually cross this hurdle. It may be Stereoscopic, holographic or one of the many other solutions but it surely must come. At least Autodesk have included tools for it in their software

I disagree. NVidia are leading the way but all the major monitor and tv players are spending a considerable amount. 3d is a very old concept but this is the first time serious money has been spent on it and we are in it's early stages. As I said there are glasses free solutions and the nintendo ds has a larger userbase than the iphone. It's not just a novelty, there are time when the depth information is invaluable (ask a micro surgeon). The brain deals with two images and the concept of focal point and convergence on a regular basis as that is just what we do when we view things with 2 eyes. The image on the back of your eye is upside down but the brain handles it. When you wear glasses to correct this your brain then uses it experience to reverse the image back again. I would think if it can do that then a simple optical illusion would cause it to fuse. I think 3D as it is now is temporary but the future is in the hands of the consumer and so far it has proved popular. Also none of the major releases at E3 this year didn't have 3D capability - so if its a trend its a strong one. EA have even set up a 3D studio to exploit the new technology. I don't think it will replace conventional technology merely an alternative delivery method.

Pretty cool, but I think the 3d trend will dissipate after people get tired of the strain it takes on the brain. Having the focal point and convergence point of an image in two different places will mess you up over time. Walter Murch explains it best: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

one of work colleagues introduced to me this a while ago (crysis) and made some demo. To some extent it does the job localy but then we (or i) were stumbled on the fact that client needs have crysis installed in their system before able to run it, and the list goes on (system spec before client could installed one etc). I was then learning something called eon which could produces standalone application to run it, but the result wasnt really that good (more like a game or it was too game-y).

No one here seems to want to talk much about realtime presentation but it is going to intrude

let them be.. lol, it would make competition less fierce.. well tbh, the more dull they are the better for me.. :). As i said ppl are just jumping band wagon really, i am bored after 3 minutes looking at all images in this section, but heyho..

So why would a client limit themselves

Because they dont know... that is the different between going to proper 3D company and going to a random bloke that could make 3D. The first option would give you guidance of what would be the best as per recent technology, the second one, you'd get an okay images with slightly tilted camera,..

We do a lot of educational content but also create full 3D environments from Tudor England during black plague to Roman Cities. I know some of the larger architects already use things like unreal for presentation work and that works in 3D natively. No one here seems to want to talk much about realtime presentation but it is going to intrude. Many engines can now create almost photoreal realtime environs (crysis and unreal engines). Why wouldn't more clients use it, it will not be long before this can be streamed across the web (Unity etc,). So why would a client limit themselves to a static print production when it's possible to provide an interactive model at the same level of detail.

it is good to have others to speak to about this medium.

i know, people are jumping bandwagon in 3D Visual industry, you'll end up looking at the same stuff on and on and on,.. :) and i think this forum is flooded with them lol. have you made something similar..?

Yes autostereoscopic monitors. They have a sweet spot where it works perfectly. However I know they have in development a system where more than one person can watch and different images are sent to each viewer using concave lenses for each pixel. If you continue working on the content the delivery system will soon be an everyday thing. Asus already have a 3D laptop and the NVidia 3D solution is becoming more and more prevalent. All the major titles at E3 this year were producing their games with 3D compatability which means the hardware will reduce. The price of the shutter glasses has dropped 40% in last 12mths. I would just carry on doing what your doing and concentrate on the stereoscopic effect and how to enhance it. The hardware will be common soon. We are currently installing systems into schools where they can using existing whiteboards and projectors to view interactive educational content. So if the schools can deal with it then the commercial sector can certainly afford. Please keep posting as it is good to have others to speak to about this medium.

Yep used the glasses. Active solutions are dropping in price all the time. Cheapest quad buffer card around £70 and 3d monitors and dlp projectors are hardly any difference in price. Emitter and glasses yes agreed extra expense, however there are already active solutions with monitors that do not require glasses. Also if you are rendering the images yourself you can produce side by side content and quite easily send this to 3D TV.

you mean like the 3D Nintendo DS technology (3D screen without glasses)? i read it somewhere just the other day, apparently it employs some sort of barrier in the screen which effectifely acts like glasses but rather than in front of our eyes, it positioned on the screen, ppl also need to see the image from the right angle to see the depth. The thing is, i need to think, how client will see it, and how their client will see it. If i could get a small cheap 3D tv version made in China, perhaps i could include it for "free" in the price.. :)

Yep used the glasses. Active solutions are dropping in price all the time. Cheapest quad buffer card around £70 and 3d monitors and dlp projectors are hardly any difference in price. Emitter and glasses yes agreed extra expense, however there are already active solutions with monitors that do not require glasses. Also if you are rendering the images yourself you can produce side by side content and quite easily send this to 3D TV.

Shame it had to be anaglyph. Those dinosaurs would have really popped out with and active solution

I know, problem is, active solution requires expensive gadgets, and has very limited media to apply on.. anaglyph on the other hand, a bit crap on the quality, i.e: colour losses and ghosting, but dare i say, with the right execution, it could mitigates all those cons and make it more acceptable while remains cheap and most importantly works (in term of depths etc).. did you use your 3D glasses? (red/cyan)

Shame it had to be anaglyph. Those dinosaurs would have really popped out with and active solution