3D pictures revisited

[ffutures]

I've modified the 3D images to eliminate a consistent vertical displacement error, as suggested by bohemiancoast; I've also discovered that the compression used by Photobucket is REALLY bad news for 3D images, it's causing a lot of the artifacts I'd assumed were ghosting. So below the cut are the 3D images again, this time optimised for vertical displacement and to minimise ghosting; Red/Cyan (blue) glasses are needed to view them properly. I've left them all full size this time, I'm still working on getting image resampling to work without messing up the 3D. Try changing the page zoom so that the whole image is comfortable to look at on the page.

















It's annoying that there appears to be no way to set the vertical displacement in the camera's firmware. Do the more expensive models allow this? Or are they simply better made?

In other news, I picked up a Mac Mini G4 dirt cheap on eBay - assuming that everything is OK, I think I'm going to use it as a media PC attached to my big TV instead of the old PC (running Linux) which was so noisy and took so long to start up that I rarely used it.

Comments

[pengshui-master.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Have you thought about seeing whether you can produce HD (eg 1080x1920) sbs, or tab images which you can display on a 3dTv ?

I've no longer got any bi-colour glass, but a year or so back sainsbury's had a 3D telly in cheap (eg, no more than one without 3D) , and since my telly at the time was an old CRT one, I took the plunge - so I do have polarized glasses for that.

Admittedly I think the only think I've actually watched in 3d on it is was the Doctor anniversary special.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

It supports 3D TV via its internal HDMI connection, and the software that came with it will give 3D images on a 3D TV or monitor, but I don't have a 3D TV so I can't test this. I think that the camera's higher resolution is above 1080x1920, but that's interpolated, the quality at lower resolution is better!