Up Close and Personal Look at the Cubic Illusion

 3D Movies, Stereoscopic 3D, Videos and Photos  No Responses »
Aug 162012
 
Share|


Here’s an up close and personal look at the stereoscopic cubic illusion. Although you can’t see the entire cube, the stereoscopic calculations for the cubic illusion are still, as always, the same.

3.3% (1/30) Stereoscopic Net Deviation is the only amount of depth that can produce a perfectly cubic stereoscopic illusion, viewable with any horizontal field of view (from any seat).

Watch this video in 2D or 3D by clicking on the “3D” button under the video and selecting your options, e.g., “Turn off 3D”.
If you are using red/cyan anaglyph glasses, be sure to select “Red/Cyan” then “Optimized (Dubois)”.

Accuracy Test of The Balsa Glider Darts

 3D Movies, Balsa Glider, Stereoscopic 3D, Videos and Photos  No Responses »
Mar 162012
 
Share|

This is my very first flight of the Balsa Glider Darts, aimed at a red cross target on my Birdblock from Lowes. I want to see if everything works okay before I start popping balloons.
The NetD in this video is close to 3.5% to 3.6%, which is just inside my maximum allowable limit of 3.8%. I’m not sure where I messed up on the exact calculations. The netting and target are 24 inches from the camera. Farthest visible point is a little over 12 feet away. Close enough for a perfectly cubic stereoscopic illusion, baby. Let’s pop some balloons, hey, hey!

The Stereoscopic Relativity Repeat Factor

 Stereoscopic 3D  No Responses »
Mar 102012
 
Share|

Stereoscopic calculations for a perfectly cubic illusion are identical for atoms and molecules or a strand of DNA, for the solar system or the entire universe, if you could locate the edges, and for everything “in between”.
Stereoscopic Relativity and the paradoxical nature of stereoscopy can easily be demonstrated by studying an image with excessive stereoscopic deviation.
Fist of all, 1/30 net deviation is the only amount of depth that looks perfectly cubic on any size screen viewed from any distance away, i.e., no matter what horizontal field of view is used when viewing the image, no Z-axis stretch or compression is introduced. (Be sure to be at least 10 feet away from your image when doing stereoscopic research, since as you get closer than that, you start incrementally introducing a down-scaling visual artifact from excessive toe-in convergence of your eyeballs, which can make stereoscopic analysis confusing.)
An image with excessive deviation can be properly viewed by moving closer to it or farther away from it, or, to put it another way, by increasing or decreasing the horizontal field of view.
Try this: With an image with 10 to 15% net deviation, move closer to the image, thus increasing the horizontal field of view, until it looks “normal”, i.e., doesn’t have weird visual distortions or Z-axis stretch or compression. Now move farther away from the image, thus decreasing the horizontal field of view, until it again looks “normal”, i.e., doesn’t have weird visual distortions or Z-axis stretch or compression.

Incredibly Bad News For The Bloggie 3D Camera

 Stereoscopic 3D  No Responses »
Feb 142012
 
Share|

The Bloggie 3D camera takes very poor shots from closer than 2 feet away. Grainy. No good.
Remember when I said that we are better off choosing just 4 configurations or calculations for good stereoscopic shots, and using only those over and over, rather than praying for “Accidental 3D” by using an “anything goes” attitude when shooting?
Look at this…
Here’s my only choices for 3.3% NetD and a perfectly cubic stereoscopic illusion:
1) Near point: 24 inches, Far Point: 8 feet
2) Near Point: 26 inches, Far Point: 11.5 feet
3) Near Point: 28 inches, Far Point: 18.9 feet
4) Near Point: 30 inches, Far Point: 42.2 feet
5) Near Point: 32 inches, Far point: Infinity
I have a whopping total of 8 inches to work with! Well, at least that sorta simplifies the whole ordeal, doesn’t it?

Shooting Better 3D Than The Professionals

 Stereoscopic 3D  No Responses »
Feb 132012
 
Share|

The thing that amazes me when reading the online “professional” forums, like the CML-3D list, is some of those guys have state-of-the-art, pro stereoscopic gear and still can’t figure out how to shoot a decent 3D image. Going to a recent “Hollywood” 3D movie will prove my point.
This is why I always tell people that they are better off choosing four configurations that work every time, rather than getting confused over all the “possible” choices. I’d rather see a movie shot with four settings that result in great 3D than a movie that uses a wide variety of settings that only work “by chance” (“Accidental 3D”).
The next thing I think I’m going to do is take my 3D camera and start on the “tight” end, and no, I’m not talking about football, boys and girls…
Based on simple, elementary stereoscopic calculations, if I shoot a scene with a farthest visible point 3 feet away, I should place the camera close to 17 inches away from the nearest visible point. I’m going to start with a test shot, and see if there are any weird things that happen when I do this, e.g. making sure I don’t get limited depth of field or excessive non-stereo overlap that has to be cropped to set the stereo window, resulting in a reduced amount of net deviation. As long as I end up with 2.8% to 3.8% NetD in the final image, I won’t complain, but the closer to 3.3% I get, the happier I will be.

 Older Entries