Ch4 3D Optical Advice
Dave W
different focus settings. The eyes of those under 40 adjust
automatically to suit the prevailing conditions, but pensioners like
me have lost the power of accommodation, and need different glasses
for different distances.
I found the right-eye blue image on Channel 4's 3D programmes badly
out of focus using my TV glasses. I was able to solve the problem by
swinging my glasses off my right eye so that it saw the screen
directly through the blue filter. Both eyes saw a focussed image and
the 3D experience became a pleasure not a pain.
Those oldies who need glasses for everything would not be able to do
this - all they could do is use their distance glasses on their right
eye and their TV glasses on their left, probably looking through them
from front to back to keep the ear hooks out of their face.
Varifocal users might be able to rotate their glasses clockwise a bit
so that the right eye sees a weaker part of the lens.
Dave W
The dog from that film you saw
"Tennant Stuart" <ten...@orpheus.co.uk> wrote in message
news:na.5d511c50be...@orpheusmail.co.uk...
>
> What can I do about seeing the yellow fringe through the blue lens?
turn your colour down.
--
Gareth.
that fly...... is your magic wand....
http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com
you fight better when you have a bear!
Light of Aria
"Dave W" <dave...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1129496a-c779-4a54...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I was really looking forward to "Friday the 13th Part III (3D)" having so
much enjoyed Jaws III 3D and the the 3D adventures of the early 1980s when
everything worked perfectly.
Sadly, this week's Channel 4 3D week has been a failure for me and I've had
to abandon Friday the 13th after about 20 minutes.
I see a double image in most, but not all frames, and what I see has very
little 3D effect.
I believe the problem may be poor quality or sub-spec glasses. The blue lens
seems cloudy and obfuse to me compared to the clearer yellow lens.
I've tried adjusting it and cleaning it with no joy.
It's a relief to take the glasses off and get back to high quality (tongue
in cheek) digital terrestrial TV. *
* The over-compressed pixilated picture quality of yesterday's rugby match,
apart from the benefit of widescreen, was worse, nay far worse, than the TV
picture I used to have in the early 1980s using an indoor aerial. Pointless,
digital TV really is pointless.
DVDfever
<lightofa...@2009.no.valid.domain.com> wrote:
> "Dave W" <davew...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
Is the Digital Switchover bollocks? :)
MC
Friday 13th Part 3 was a dire conversion. Firstly they had to deal with
a horrendously grainy print. It was awful. Secondly the conversion
from Polarised 3D to the ColorCode3D that channel 4 used was awful.
Conversion from the Red/Blue 3D of old would be more suited but Friday
13th was not filmed that way. The double image syndrome was more
visible during the darker scenes and as there was a lot of dark scenes
it seemed more noticable overall.
I too gave up after 20 minutes because to get any kind of decent 3D
effect you had to be almost on top of the TV but the print was so bad
it was unwatchable so close up (and I was watching on CH4 HD).
> I believe the problem may be poor quality or sub-spec glasses. The
> blue lens seems cloudy and obfuse to me compared to the clearer
> yellow lens.
Me too. However, I think the quality of the conversion matters. It
was worse when programs were converted from other 3D formats but was
acceptable on original ColorCode formated programs like the Derren
Brown thing.
MC
UKMonitor
specs.
UKM
Martin
news:73576082-d149-4db4...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
> Modern 3D TV when launched is likely to use circularly polarised
> specs.
I've always wondered about polarised 3D. In a cinema you can have two
projectors aimed at the screen, using polarising filters at 90 degrees to
each other. But how do you make a TV screen produced polarised light that
the polarised specs can separate into different left and right images?
David
"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Q_qdnRHMueiLyZfW...@brightview.co.uk...
.......... But how do you make a TV screen produced polarised light that
> the polarised specs can separate into different left and right images?
2 TV sets, now there is a thought.
LOL
Regards
David
MC
Interlaced?
MC
Light of Aria
>
>
> Me too. However, I think the quality of the conversion matters. It
> was worse when programs were converted from other 3D formats but was
> acceptable on original ColorCode formated programs like the Derren
> Brown thing.
>
>
> MC
Thanks MC. I am glad it wasn't just me experiencing this. It was a joy to
get back to 2D 16:9 after this!
Basil Jet
> "Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:Q_qdnRHMueiLyZfW...@brightview.co.uk...
>
> .......... But how do you make a TV screen produced polarised light
> that
>> the polarised specs can separate into different left and right
>> images?
Alternate lines could have filters to polarise in the different directions -
although this would waste half of the power, so only generating the right
kind of light would be better, but I don't know if that's possible.
--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.
Kennedy McEwen
<jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> writes
polarised in one direction anyway. Try looking at an LCD display
through polaroid glasses then rotate the glasses and you'll see what I
mean - which is one of the problems with simple polarised filters:
tilting your head while wearing the polaroid specs causes mixing of the
left and right images and loss of the 3D effect.
The solution to that is to use left and right handed circular polarised
light, with similarly circular polarised glasses. That eliminates the
tilt crosstalk effect, but it requires an extra layer on the screen and
on the glasses.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Kennedy McEwen
<david...@tesco.net> writes
80s for some of the prototype 3D displays that resulted in some of the
broadcast experiments that were discussed earlier in the thread.
2 TVs behind left & right handed circular polarising screens viewed via
a semi-silvered mirror so that one display was transmitted by the mirror
and the other reflected - thus appearing as a single display. Viewed
with left and right handed circularly polarised glasses the images were
separated again for the viewer.
Basil Jet
> In article <rxwOm.49356$KP1....@newsfe16.ams2>, Basil Jet
> <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> writes
>> David wrote:
>>> "Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Q_qdnRHMueiLyZfW...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>
>>> .......... But how do you make a TV screen produced polarised light
>>> that
>>>> the polarised specs can separate into different left and right
>>>> images?
>>
>> Alternate lines could have filters to polarise in the different
>> directions - although this would waste half of the power, so only
>> generating the right kind of light would be better, but I don't know
>> if that's possible.
>
> Wouldn't waste any more power than current LCD sets, which are already
> polarised in one direction anyway.
I was aware of that, but there is a political and cultural climate of energy
saving now that wasn't around when the LCD screens were introduced.
Kennedy McEwen
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> In article <rxwOm.49356$KP1....@newsfe16.ams2>, Basil Jet
>> <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>> David wrote:
>>>> "Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Q_qdnRHMueiLyZfW...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> .......... But how do you make a TV screen produced polarised light
>>>> that
>>>>> the polarised specs can separate into different left and right
>>>>> images?
>>>
>>> Alternate lines could have filters to polarise in the different
>>> directions - although this would waste half of the power, so only
>>> generating the right kind of light would be better, but I don't know
>>> if that's possible.
>>
>> Wouldn't waste any more power than current LCD sets, which are already
>> polarised in one direction anyway.
>
>I was aware of that, but there is a political and cultural climate of energy
>saving now that wasn't around when the LCD screens were introduced.
>
in the first place, unless to endorse the political and cultural climate
which, as usual, has little and in this case nothing to do with the
facts.
Felicity S.
> It was a daft experiment by Channel 4 with loads of people not getting
> the 3D glasses in the first place, myself included.
Our Sainsbury's had big bins full of these glasses. Assuming that all
the others did as well, the reason you couldn't get any 3D glasses was
they had already gone. Which means, if you think about it, that loads of
people *did* get the 3D glasses, just not late-comers like you. :)
Fliss
--
She said: If it weren't for you I would still be the
Queen of Portugal. And now, what am I?
He said: You are drunk and you are foolish!
Felicity S.
> Felicity S. wrote:
>> Ar wrote:
>>> It was a daft experiment by Channel 4 with loads of people not getting
>>> the 3D glasses in the first place, myself included.
>> Our Sainsbury's had big bins full of these glasses. Assuming that all
>> the others did as well, the reason you couldn't get any 3D glasses was
>> they had already gone.
> This means there weren't enough.
>> Which means, if you think about it, that loads of
>> people *did* get the 3D glasses, just not late-comers like you. :)
> No, the limited supply was all snatched up by "early birds" to continue
> your analogy :-).
There wasn't a limited supply, there were *loads* of glasses.
> When *I* think about it, the reason I couldn't get them was that firstly
> there were not enough of them,
Yes there were, and I've never been an early bird!
> and secondly there was an astonishing lack of a backup plan when it
> became apparent that they were overwhelmed by the demand.
Overwhelmed by the demand means that loads of people got glasses.
Fliss
--
He said: The prehistoric creature the Pleiosaur lived in what environment?
He said: Fossil collector Mary Anning discovered Pleiosaurs lived in the sea.
He said: The British scientist Mary Anning is best known for collecting what?
Felicity S.
> Felicity S. wrote:
>> Mike Henry wrote:
>>> Felicity S. wrote:
>>>> Ar wrote:
>>>>> It was a daft experiment by Channel 4 with loads of people not
>>>>> getting the 3D glasses in the first place, myself included.
>>>> Our Sainsbury's had big bins full of these glasses. Assuming that all
>>>> the others did as well, the reason you couldn't get any 3D glasses was
>>>> they had already gone.
>>> This means there weren't enough.
>>>> Which means, if you think about it, that loads of
>>>> people *did* get the 3D glasses, just not late-comers like you. :)
>>> No, the limited supply was all snatched up by "early birds" to continue
>>> your analogy :-).
>> There wasn't a limited supply, there were *loads* of glasses.
>>> When *I* think about it, the reason I couldn't get them was that
>>> firstly there were not enough of them,
>> Yes there were, and I've never been an early bird!
> If there were enough, they wouldn't have run out. It's simple logic.
You're just miffed cos you turned up too late and missed out. TT :)
Fliss
--
She said: You're going stay here with your
ex-wife because her sheep's dying?
He said: No, because *our* sheep's dying...