New "must see" technology

The gorgeous one wanted to go to the movies last night and so I found myself stuck at the wrong time for the non 3D Men in Black Movie, which both of us wanted to see.

So we ended up getting handed glasses for this new fangled 3D stuff which us old folks know never works and has always been a silly fad which always fades away

Well not any more folks

If you haven't seen a modern 3D movie then go before you die

a-m-a-z-i-n-g stuff

The glasses are like good cheap sunglasses, no lines, no colours and the 3D stuff is crystal clear and comes right out of the screen at you

They are definitely getting there now, and it was a good entertainment film

If they remastered Jaws, 633 squadron and the Battle of Britain in this new 3D stuff they would be awesome

Edited By Ady1 on 17/06/2012 10:11:46

Bah, humbug... been there, tried that. It detracts from the enjoyment of the film, and gives me headaches. YMMV, but it's not for me.

Took me about 10 minutes to adapt, but was fine after that

It reminded me of when I saw my first colour TV after watching black and white for years

My brain was struggling to cope with a whole new stack of visual information to begin with

One way or another (and I won't bore you with the details) I've spent rather more than ten minutes with this stuff - in all of its forms. It's a gimmick, and any superficial attraction it has soon wears off. The best I've ever seen was the old red/green glasses stuff (not the current polarised version) in an iMax cinema, but even that didn't really do it for me.

Forget 3D and go fast forward to full hollgraphic projection then you won't need the glasses.

Got to ask the question: we used to make stuff using only 2D drawings now it seems everybody wants 3D drawings. Does it make the final product better or is it just a visual thing.

I think they call it progress

Paul

Paul,

What's a 3D drawing? Is it one where the parts keep changing shape as you look at them? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Gary

Hi There

Having worked in a company where they made to 3D models, as setters, we never got to see a drawing.

The components were programmed from the 3D model and inspected on a computer measuring machine.

Were the components any better, you decide.

We were involved with making parts for the Nimrod before they took a JCB to wreck them.

The parts we made were surfaced all over which means they were machined to a contour.

How did they get the shape from the original as when the Nimrod was made it was very unlikely that ir would have been made on CNC machines. I assume they took a bit from an old Nimrod and put it on a computer measuring machine to make a 3D drawing.

So, if they did this, the question that has always puzzled me was were they making brand new Nimrod components that had 30 years of wear and distortion in them?

Can anybody answer this?

Also, one of the parts I was involved in was surfaced all over. I came in to work one evening (night shift put a lot more money in your pocket at the end of the week) and the day shift chap said "Those components you machined were not flat on the bottom so we skimmed them flat.

They were not meant to be flat, six weeks wasted, still, not my problem.

regards David

Edited By David Clark 1 on 17/06/2012 14:18:42

Hi there, David,

How were those parts held for machining?

Best regards,

Swarf, Mostly!

Hi

Headaches are often reported by viewers of 3D films etc. It stems from the fact that the eyes remain focussed at a fixed distance, on the screen, so their convergence remains constant but the perceived images are seen in different and moving planes. Result the brain gets scrambled and complains, evidently some clever person is looking into it , sorry about the pun, to see if they can fix it somehow.

Cheers

Martin

Once saw a demonstration at a Royal Television Society/IET meeting of 3D teleision without glasses.

+/- 128planes in front/rear of screen line. Superb pictures, only drawback, there were cetain angles (few) in front of the screen where the 3D effect wasn't.

Yeah, I know what causes it too!

They ought to pay me the research money for looking into this, because I've already got a perfect solution for the problem...

Stop making 3D films!

I have a spectacle-less 3D system for my iPad. When set up correctly it actually works very well but there is an overlay screen involved which is fiddly to get located accurately plus there is a limited range of head position to get the 3D effect (not actually much of a problem with a tablet).

As far as the headache-effect goes, much of that is due to the stupid insistence on have things "come out of the screen" at you instead of using the screen as a window onto the 3D world with everything behind the window .... which is how stereo purists will tell you it should be displayed and is significantly more comfortable.

As for "remastering" early movies, you strictly can't in any real sense since you don't have film with the two viewpoints. They have ways of faking it with occasionally good results - but mostly rather bad.

Edited By Sid Herbage on 17/06/2012 18:37:17

Sid'd iPad system uses a similialr lenticular overlay panel as my TV system above, however I can see no difference with 256 layers behind the screen as +/- 128 front/rear as far as the eyes are concerned.

Hi Swarf

We started off in the vice and then we surfaced a fixture to clamp them to.

regards david

3D is a waste of time for me, as i only have one eye that works. I judge distance by how big or small somthing is. This has worked for me for close on 72 years so far, but 3D ! ! !

Cheers Derek