On Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:40:47 -0500, "Dave Whitney" wrote:

>Wow, got more conversation on this than expected!
>I spent about 4 hours surfing last night looking for some answers. Found an
>incredible amount of stuff on anaglyphs. One of the best sites I found was
>Dimension 3 (www.3dcompany.com). (These guys helped produce the 10 3D shows
>that aired on ABC in May, 97.) Between their tech info and others I read,
>here's why I can't do what I want... at least not very well:
>
>The perception of depth (e.g.. for a still image) is achieved by shifting
>the red/blue channel left/right. The depth of the image is determined by
>how for the channel is offset. If the whole image is offset by the same
>amount, it will all appear at the same depth. Obviously, this is about
>worthless unless you want a flat image floating on the surface of the
>screen/page. To get varying depths, one would have the vary the amount of
>the offset throughout the image. Someone I work with used to have a program
>that would let you designate different depths at different coordinates on
>the image, then it would create the offset channel(s). Sound time
>consuming? You bet!
>
>Tried to keep the explanation short and sweet, so don't go relying on my
>amateurish explanation of the physics of anaglyphs! After all, my
>experience totals less than 15 hours over the past week! Want to know more?
>Tell your fav-o-rite search engine to look for "anaglyph."
>
>Thanks for your time, and I will keep looking for David Ruether's results to
>get posted (see below). Should be interesting!

Well, here it is...! ;-)
3-D TV --- IT WORKS, IT WORKS!!!
A couple of days ago I rigged two VX-1000's together
with a few inches of separation between them (with .5X
WA converters on the lenses, and the zooms at the short
end - using a "clicker" to synch the two tapes at each
scene-change/camera-startup). I shot about 18 minutes
of material on a local street, and in a Cornell
arboretum/herb-garden (then my back gave out, holding
those two camcorders up, ending the experiment...;-).
I set up a test in Premiere 4.2 with a split screen
(cropping the two images to side-by-side verticals),
which turned out to be quite easy. Tonight I made a
quick test with a few seconds of material, looped it,
and sent it out to tape.
It worked fine on both a 13" TV, and a 27" TV (viewed
at about 6'), using a finger or cupped hands to establish
the crossed-eye stereo image (see my web page for still
3-D images, and the methods for viewing...).
I just did the first test run of a piece a couple of
minutes long. It works quite well, though you get a
rather slim-cropped vertical image to look at... But,
I T W O R K S ! ! ! S - T - E - R - E - O T - V !!!
It turned out to be easier to set up on the computer
than I expected, and it needs no fussing around with
image centers changing with distance (it would be
better if I did adjust the cropping/positioning for
this, but without doing it the apparent picture width
changes to accommodate...).
Hmmmm, B&W infrared video, stereo video..., what else
shall I try.....? (B&W IR stereo video...? ;-)