My grandfather took thousands of 3D slides in the 1950's. Had I never seen these I would dismiss 3D as a gimmick. But those slides captured the moment in a way no regular photo could match. 3D really did add value to those pictures. The only thing odd about 3D pictures is that they can be a little creepy. You see everyone in the photo as if they are alive right in front of you, but they are frozen in motion like a Twilight Zone episode.
It looks like this describes a method of using specific aspects of the sensor data (chroma, luminance) to calculate the disparity between left and right views with NEW levels of precision. Like using metadata at chip level to refine the parallax geometry.
...
You're merely restating the flowchart. As I said previously, there's nothing novel about it. Everyone doing 3D is using aspects of the same approach -- there's simply no other data coming from the sensor to use. As to prior art, look at the numerous examples of palpable products already provided in the thread.
It may seem that it's enough to put together a few technical terms into a flowchart in order to make up a patent-worthy idea, but in reality some actual ingenuity goes a long way...
You're merely restating the flowchart. As I said previously, there's nothing novel about it. Everyone doing 3D is using aspects of the same approach -- there's simply no other data coming from the sensor to use. As to prior art, look at the numerous examples of palpable products already provided in the thread.
It may seem that it's enough to put together a few technical terms into a flowchart in order to make up a patent-worthy idea, but in reality some actual ingenuity goes a long way...
You are right, I was working off the 'flowchart,' but now that I've seen the application:
"Mr. Murch is perfectly right to point out the convergence/focus problem as a limitation of the medium, but for him and Ebert (whom I have rebutted before on the topic) to consider it fatal is, in my opinion, a lack of imagination and faith in the ingenuity of filmmakers."
I don't interpret that as saying that Murch is misguided, rather, it seems to agree he has a point.
No doubt filmmakers can film things differently to make the effect less painful on people, but the incompatibility with human physiology remains. If a person can view their real world surroundings without pain and only when viewing 3D electronically do the symptoms of binocular misalignment or marginal stereo vision occur, I place the blame on the medium, not the eyes.
Where Murch and Ebert are misguided is in condemning the medium by judging how it is misused.
I like the challenge in your last two sentences. The capture and display of stereo images isolate the two views in a way not encountered in real-world vision. This means that the 3D photographer has to be very mindful of the viewer's tolerance of disparity between the two views according to the background/foreground interest in any given scene. Many if not most current movies ignore these considerations. But it can be done, to great advantage, particularly in documentaries like the Space Station IMAX films. Werner Herzog's coming doc on the cave paintings should be definitive; I haven't seen it yet.
On your other point, there are millions of people walking around with no or dodgy stereo vision, and they're doing just fine, but not when they go to a 3D movie. (Again, Sue Barry is a must-read on this subject, if you care.) This is because of the isolation of the two views I mentioned earlier. Still no fault of the medium, because people with good stereo vision can see a kind of deep photography they've never seen before.
The problem really is that 3D is being exploited and oversold right now. It's not for everyone and every subject.
Let's see if all the iFanboys will suddenly change their mind and start liking 3D on their phones. The same iFans who blasted this feature on Android phones.
Comments
...
It looks like this describes a method of using specific aspects of the sensor data (chroma, luminance) to calculate the disparity between left and right views with NEW levels of precision. Like using metadata at chip level to refine the parallax geometry.
...
You're merely restating the flowchart. As I said previously, there's nothing novel about it. Everyone doing 3D is using aspects of the same approach -- there's simply no other data coming from the sensor to use. As to prior art, look at the numerous examples of palpable products already provided in the thread.
It may seem that it's enough to put together a few technical terms into a flowchart in order to make up a patent-worthy idea, but in reality some actual ingenuity goes a long way...
You're merely restating the flowchart. As I said previously, there's nothing novel about it. Everyone doing 3D is using aspects of the same approach -- there's simply no other data coming from the sensor to use. As to prior art, look at the numerous examples of palpable products already provided in the thread.
It may seem that it's enough to put together a few technical terms into a flowchart in order to make up a patent-worthy idea, but in reality some actual ingenuity goes a long way...
You are right, I was working off the 'flowchart,' but now that I've seen the application:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...age+Sensors%22
It looks totally novel to me -- three sensors, one being only for 3D disparity data -- but what do I know about stereo imaging at this level?
"Palpable products already provided in the thread"?? What products, what thread? Perhaps you can mention something specific that is prior art.
From the article (emphasis added):
"Mr. Murch is perfectly right to point out the convergence/focus problem as a limitation of the medium, but for him and Ebert (whom I have rebutted before on the topic) to consider it fatal is, in my opinion, a lack of imagination and faith in the ingenuity of filmmakers."
I don't interpret that as saying that Murch is misguided, rather, it seems to agree he has a point.
No doubt filmmakers can film things differently to make the effect less painful on people, but the incompatibility with human physiology remains. If a person can view their real world surroundings without pain and only when viewing 3D electronically do the symptoms of binocular misalignment or marginal stereo vision occur, I place the blame on the medium, not the eyes.
Where Murch and Ebert are misguided is in condemning the medium by judging how it is misused.
I like the challenge in your last two sentences. The capture and display of stereo images isolate the two views in a way not encountered in real-world vision. This means that the 3D photographer has to be very mindful of the viewer's tolerance of disparity between the two views according to the background/foreground interest in any given scene. Many if not most current movies ignore these considerations. But it can be done, to great advantage, particularly in documentaries like the Space Station IMAX films. Werner Herzog's coming doc on the cave paintings should be definitive; I haven't seen it yet.
On your other point, there are millions of people walking around with no or dodgy stereo vision, and they're doing just fine, but not when they go to a 3D movie. (Again, Sue Barry is a must-read on this subject, if you care.) This is because of the isolation of the two views I mentioned earlier. Still no fault of the medium, because people with good stereo vision can see a kind of deep photography they've never seen before.
The problem really is that 3D is being exploited and oversold right now. It's not for everyone and every subject.
Let's see if all the iFanboys will suddenly change their mind and start liking 3D on their phones. The same iFans who blasted this feature on Android phones.
It'll be one hilarious sight to see.