Xref: utzoo comp.graphics:4212 rec.arts.tv:8383
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!apollo!ron_b
From: ron_b@apollo.COM (Ronald Buttiglieri)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: How to view Superbowl 3-D
Keywords: TV 3-D graphic
Message-ID: <41153818.16321@apollo.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 89 22:27:00 GMT
References: <3230@datapg.MN.ORG> <3047@pixar.UUCP>
Reply-To: ron_b@apollo.COM (Ronald Buttiglieri)
Distribution: na
Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 46

In article <3047@pixar.UUCP> good@pixar.uucp (Craig Good: Central Marin Home for the Bewildered) writes:
>In article <3230@datapg.MN.ORG> sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) writes:
>:I don't care for the Diet version of Coke, so I don't have
>:the "official" 3-D glasses.  Nevertheless, I taped the  ....
>:All I knew of the glasses was what was shown on TV, with
>:an almost clear left lens and a dark right lens.  I   ....
>:
>
>Your empiricism is good, but you nicked yourself on Occam's Razor.  It
>turns out the system is diabolically simple.  Putting a dark lens
>....
>I don't know how these guys sold it as a licensed product since you
>can't very well patent a camera move, and the glasses are simply one
>clear lens and one grey one.  Since it's based on motion artifacts there
>are annoying things about motion artifacts in the image.  Pretty darn
>clever, though.  
>
>
In the interest of science (always wanted to say that) and my own
insatiable curiosity, I referred back to Popular Science June '88 issue
that had an article on 3-D TV. Several methods of 3-D are described,
including the technique (very accurately described in prev. postings)
used at-the-half. This was originally supposed to be used on the
last show from last-season's _Moonlighting_. (I assume the writer's 
strike stopped that from happening) 

With reference to the comment about "licensed product", in the interview
with the president of Nuoptix Inc., he explained that their company
also developed a new "film-to-tape process" by which they can get
 60+ frames per second rather than the standard 24 fps. This explains
why the commercial is so crisp in detail. I believe this "aids" in the
3-D effect because the eye receives more (faster rate) information, more
like real-life. This is *probably* what they license(?).

With (or without, just use a dark lens on the "trailing eye") the 3-D
glasses, other TV shows can produce a similar effect. Try it. Again, 
the horizontal motion is the real key.

One other thing suggested in the article was to look at a 'snow-filled'
screen (UHF non-channel?) with the glasses for an interresting effect.
(just don't let your neighbors see you, they'll think you've flipped)

And, of course, there's the: " Wow! With these glasses on, EVERYTHING
looks 3-D! Look at my HAND! WOW!.."   :^)

Ron