Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hubble In Anaglyph Stereo 3D

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the needs-more-naavi dept.

NASA 114

rwllama writes "We at the Hubble Space Telescope have quietly released our first anaglyph (i.e. red/cyan) stereo 3D movie of a flight into a Hubble image. This work is a follow-on to the sequences we produced for the 'Hubble 3D' Imax film. Note that the 3D interpretation uses lots of artistic license, so it is not intended to be scientifically accurate. We would love to hear the Slashdot crowd's feedback on whether you want more, are artistic interpretations of scientific data acceptable, is anaglyph 3D too annoying, how many could watch this with a real 3D (e.g., NVIDIA 3D Vision) setup, etc?"

cancel ×

114 comments

First new word I leaned today (2, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599360)

First new word I leaned today: Anaglyph [wikipedia.org]

Re:First new word I leaned today (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599558)

All I get is Loading... Loading...

Looks like you've Slashdotted a Wikipedia page. Bravo! Either that or they're now being hosted on Real's servers.

Re:First new word I leaned today (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#33600794)

Don't worry, you didn't miss much. Just an attempt at a 3d pan and zoom image. The clip was 29 seconds.

Re:First new word I leaned today (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599852)

I thought it was Analglyph at first and figured "goatse" followed High Fructose Corn Syrup in the search for a new name.

Re:First new word I leaned today (3, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599990)

I thought it was Analglyph at first

Would that be a tatoo on your arse designed to be viewed with 3d glasses?

It could open up some interesting lines: "Hey babe, if you like 3d movies I've got something to show you!" or "now your here would you like to come upstairs and take a look at my anaglyph?"

Re:First new word I leaned today (1)

Gerafix (1028986) | more than 3 years ago | (#33600986)

That's Goatseglyph.

Re:First new word I leaned today (1)

daremonai (859175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33602556)

It didn't help that the URL for their website ends in /b/.

Re:First new word I leaned today (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33600000)

First new word I leaned today

We words will not be intimidated, no much how much we are leaned on.

Re:First new word I leaned today (0, Offtopic)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33600022)

Goddamit, I really wish /. had a way to edit comments. Preview is great and all, but not much use when you think you've got it right.

Re:First new word I leaned today (1)

INeededALogin (771371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33601334)

He who controls the past controls the future... Honestly... it would really hurt the whole moderation/reply setup as you could just make someone's reply irrelevant with an edit. Slashdot moves to fast for post edits.

Re:First new word I leaned today (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33601960)

[citation needed]

Re:First new word I leaned today (1)

Zencyde (850968) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605032)

First new word I leaned today: Anaglyph [wikipedia.org]

Really? Go get yourself a pair of glasses off Amazon (I paid 10 bucks for 4 sets and one of them is sunglasses shaped!) and download IZ3D's software.
Anaglyph Drivers [iz3d.com]


This solution has a bit of ghosting on my TN displays (yeah, 3D+Eyefinity) but would probably work a lot better on a nice IPS or an OLED screen. The more accurate your color reproduction, the closer it ought to be (you can likely manipulate it to better suit your glasses).


On glasses. There are two basic types. You have gel types, which often come with comic books. These things are crap and block out much of the color, but because there's some overlap in blockage you don't see ghosting effects. The other type are acrylic. These tend to have a bit less crossover and that leaves room for ghosting. But likewise, you have good color reproduction. I'm pretty impressed with how easily I can differentiate colors on this.

Go, have fun! And don't forget to lower the settings on Crysis. Yikes, on 3 screens that ate and digested my 5870 right quick. I had a large pile of poop I fondly call my computer sitting by my feet for about 45 seconds before the video settings menu finally loaded.

Re:First new word I leaned today (1)

Zencyde (850968) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605070)

It's bad form to reply to myself but I recommend the ProAna [amazon.com] glasses. After doing research I found that these were on the higher end of the quality list.

Youtube it please (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599368)

The 3D YouTube player allows the user to decide if they want to watch a 2D version, a cyan/red version, a real 3D version (i.e. shutter glasses), etc.

It looks like it could be neat, but without the glasses, it's just a red/blue mess.

Re:Youtube it please (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599712)

without the glasses, it's just a red/blue mess.

Did you expect anything else?

Do you think anyone would expect anything else? (except the guy who came with the "colorblind can't see 3D" answer. His expectations about removing the glasses were probably that his head would explode, or he'd throw laserbeams or something)

Re:Youtube it please (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33600818)

FAKE.

This isn't true 3D, just like the special edition of Nightmare Before Christmas was not true 3D. It's a computer-processed generation, kinda similar to how they used to apply Fake colorization to black-and-white movies.

Re:Youtube it please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33601398)

The 3D in Avatar was a computer-processed generation as well. 1. Does the image look 3D to the viewer? Check 2. Did they work to make it scientifically correct? in the article - Check by your definition, all 3D images coming off a 2D screen would be classified as fake these days.

Re:Youtube it please (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33601744)

But Avatar isn't purporting to be a real object.

Re:Youtube it please (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605364)

The 3D in Avatar was a computer-processed generation as well.

Not the way he described it, no.

Check by your definition, all 3D images coming off a 2D screen would be classified as fake these days.

You didn't understand his point, which is kinda sad because the reference he made to 'colorization' is pretty close. That's why it fails the 'Check 2' point you mentioned. They didn't work with real depth like Avatar did, they had to work it out after the fact.

Re:Youtube it please (3, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33602070)

FAKE.

This isn't true 3D, just like the special edition of Nightmare Before Christmas was not true 3D.

Unfortunately they didn't have the budget to place the cameras 500 light years apart to get a true stereoscopic image of the Large Megallanic Cloud.

Color Blind (5, Informative)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599392)

From TFA:

"Q: I am color blind. Can I see the stereo 3-D movies?

A: Unfortunately, no. The anaglyph stereo 3-D technique relies on colors to separate the left and right eye images. If one can not see or distinguish between certain colors, then the anaglyph stereo 3-D effect will not work."

That's incorrect. The color of the image and the color of the lens is used to direct a false colored monochrome image to each eye. That is, the left eye receives a blue tinted monochrome image and the right eye receives a red tinted monochrome image (or vice-versa).

For someone who is color blind and can't differentiate red and blue, then they will perceive the color arriving at each eye to be the same. For them, the 3D effect will be even better.

Re:Color Blind (1)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599450)

For someone who is color blind and can't differentiate red and blue, then they will perceive the color arriving at each eye to be the same. For them, the 3D effect will be even better.

so you're claiming that there are some for whom red/blue "3d" doesn't suck? because i'm pretty sure it sucks universally.

p.s. what i'm really hearing is that the next Hubble should be a binocular telescope.

Re:Color Blind (3, Insightful)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599768)

what i'm really hearing is that the next Hubble should be a binocular telescope.

I'm guessing here - but I'm sure someone could do some calculations to back me up... I don't think that would work. To get a decent stereo effect the two lenses would have to be some distance apart. I have two eyes but I can't tell the difference between the distance to the moon and the distance to the sun and that's quite some difference. In fact the whole sky could be one flat image as far as my eyes can tell.

The summary says that they've used a lot of artistic license. I am guessing this means they have exaggerated the difference between what each eye sees based on the known distance of the object. Either that or they've used one image from one point in Hubble's orbit and one image from the opposite point.

Re:Color Blind (1)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 3 years ago | (#33600060)

so increase the distance between them?

use our experience with the mars rovers and protocols like NTP to coordinate them?

Re:Color Blind (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 3 years ago | (#33600124)

You mean like STEREO?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/main/index.html [nasa.gov]

Except that perhaps you'd want them much, much, much, etc., further apart if you want to directly resolve parallax in objects at interstellar distances.

Re:Color Blind (1)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 3 years ago | (#33600206)

don't tell me, tell the GP.

Re:Color Blind (2, Informative)

sirrunsalot (1575073) | more than 3 years ago | (#33600292)

I'm guessing here - but I'm sure someone could do some calculations to back me up... I don't think that would work. To get a decent stereo effect the two lenses would have to be some distance apart.

If they're two AU's apart and you look in the right direction, then you have a the idea of a parsec [wikipedia.org] .

If someone will do the calculations? Okay, I'll bite.

I'll put this in terms of human vision since we're all familiar with that (probably). If your eyes are 2.5 inches apart, then a parallax of an arc second corresponds to an object about 6.5 km away. The Carina nebula is in the neighborhood of 8000 ly away, which is around 2500 pc. Since everything's a nice small angle, that means this nebula is to Earth's orbit what an object 6.5*2500 = 16250 km away is to your eyes. That's about a third of the way to geosynchronous orbit. 80% of people can distinguish depth of objects with a horizontal disparity of about 30 arc seconds. This is about 30*2500 = 75000 times beyond the limits of human depth perception. (I think I'm off by a factor of two here for angles vs. half-angles, but you get the idea.) Even if it's possible to distinguish an approximate depth to an astronomical object using parallax, there's really no chance of distinguishing depth within the object.

Re:Color Blind (1)

orgelspieler (865795) | more than 3 years ago | (#33601730)

You're exactly right. I sometimes make stereographs of mountains by taking two photographs from an airplane going over the mountain. To get the best effect, you don't take two pictures at the same time just a few inches apart. Instead you take one picture, then wait a few seconds as you fly partially over, and then take a second picture. The end effect is similar to looking at a small 3D model of a mountain, which I find more helpful.

I wouldn't call it artistic license so much as useful manipulation of data. But I guess to the scientists, that's the same thing. They already have to fake the colorization, so what's the problem with exaggerating the relief by taking the pictures a few years apart, right?

Re:Color Blind (1)

XiX36 (715429) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599486)

Well, blue color blindness is rare and red/blue color blindness even more so. I have the red/green variety and 3D tinted glasses never seem to work very well for me.

Re:Color Blind (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599524)

Well, blue color blindness is rare and red/blue color blindness even more so. I have the red/green variety and 3D tinted glasses never seem to work very well for me.

They don't work very well for anyone, colorblind or not.

Re:Color Blind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33599866)

I have green/green colour blindness. I can't tell the difference between green and green - particularly when it's the same shade.

Re:Color Blind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33601062)

suck it, puny trichromat!

Re:Color Blind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33609456)

There are girls on slashdot?

Re:Color Blind (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599638)

The reasoning must've been something like:

"the pretty pretty colors make the picture fat!"
Q: "I can no see pretty pretty colors"
A: "no fat picture for you!"
Q: Q_Q

Re:Color Blind (2, Informative)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599668)

It depends on the type of color blindness. The red and cyan filters produce a black and red, and a black and cyan image respectively. If you can't distinguish reds, then the left eye receives a field of black. You'd get as much 3D as a person with a patch over their eye: None.

Re:Color Blind (2, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599766)

If you can’t see reds, then the left eye receives a field of (apparently) black. If you can’t distinguish reds (from greens, i.e. red/green colorblindness), the left eye receives what could (apparently) be either red or green, but it should at least be able to see it.

Re:Color Blind (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599966)

But cyan has green and blue as components, so your 3D effect would be somewhat ruined if you were red/cgreen colorblind.

Re:Color Blind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33600046)

Wrong. Instead of red, you'd see grey. If you can't percieve green either, you'd get grey on the other eye as well, which would improve the 3D effect enormously, since both pictures are the same color (or lack thereof) and therefore easier to fuse.

That is incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33600192)

As this small picture will show you , being color blind don't mean you see the color as *black* wiki color blind of american flag [wikimedia.org] each type of our color detector cells see actually a wide spectrum, and it overlaps. So depending on the "red" used in those lens for glasses, you will see gray stuff, or even green stuff if the absorption is not a pure red line.

Re:Color Blind (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33601618)

That reminds me a while back when I was in to get my eyes checked. Because I've managed to memorize a lot of those tests, they had to go with an alternate, which used red and green lines to check to see if it was in focus. While a person with color blindness in those cones, wouldn't see the colors, it would still work.

Likewise, while a person wouldn't be able to see the color component they would be able to get a luminescence channel. The main problem would be being more sensitive in one eye than the other, unless one is color blind in both those cones.

Re:Color Blind (2, Informative)

Hillbert (935900) | more than 3 years ago | (#33602602)

The red-green test (binocular balancing) does work on anomalous trichromats, i.e. most of the people who are colourblind or colour deficient. Just because you can't distinguish between red and green doesn't change the way the wavelengths focus. (We have to adjust our questions to refer to the right or left side, rather than the red or green, but that's about it.)
Very few people are missing a particular colour of cones; rather, the light-sensitive pigment is altered by genetics to be most sensitive to a different/"wrong" wavelength. So your red-green colour deficient people usually have their 'green' cones more sensitive to red instead of green (or vice versa). That doesn't mean that they don't see green, they're just less sensitive to it than they are to red; the photopigments are still activated by wavelengths other than the one they're most sensitive to.
For more info, look up the spectral sensitivity functions for the various photopigments; you can imagine how shifting the sensitivity of any of the curves will affect things, but it will in no way prevent normal colours from being visible.
(I'm an optometrist. And yes, it's spelled "colour" here.)

Re:Color Blind (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#33601702)

3D side-by-side is better than anaglyphic that requires glasses. I can see side-by-side without any device.

Why people are not posting more stereo in side-by-side format?

Time for a nice quiet Slashdot effect ;-) (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599408)

"We at the Hubble Space Telescope have quietly released our first anaglyph ..."

I can't think of a way to release something to the tech world more quietly than a post to Slashdot. (No, I'm not serious)

Beaten! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33599458)

Darn, you beat me to it! Mod points and a beer for you!

Re:Time for a nice quiet Slashdot effect ;-) (2, Interesting)

rwllama (587787) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599574)

Yes, that line in the post was intentionally ironic. We did not trumpet the 3D in the press release for the general public, but if the post made it to slashdot we would be loud to the tech savvy audience who could give us the best feedback.

Re:Time for a nice quiet Slashdot effect ;-) (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599634)

"Yes, that line in the post was intentionally ironic."

I am not trying to flamebait or troll here, but I have to ask: Are you by any chance aware of the invention of the emoticon? Of course, maybe the Slashdot editors edited it out.

Moar Hubble (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599410)

I don't care if it's made to be poop color...there are never enough images from the Hubble. Anything they are willing to present is good in my book!

Re:Moar Hubble (1)

Allnighte (1794642) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599462)

I don't care if it's made to be poop color...there are never enough images from the Hubble. Anything they are willing to present is good in my book!

and this is exactly why, even after reading TFS and TFA, consciously saying to myself "I know I don't have 3D glasses of *any* kind", I still watched the video.

In full screen.

And told myself "actually it does look a little 3D."

Re:Moar Hubble (1)

orgelspieler (865795) | more than 3 years ago | (#33601782)

I still have my 3D glasses from Starship Titanic! I'm so glad to finally have another use for them.

There's no 3D in space! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33599422)

The only way to show the vastness of space is to have its focus at infinity. If you exaggerate the human interocular distance by a billion to show the Carina Nebula "in 3D", all you're doing is making the Carina Nebula look a few dozen feet wide. When will people learn? I'm still puking from having seen a round Earth in Resident Evil Afterlife.

Re:There's no 3D in space! (1)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599612)

(subject) There's no 3D in space!

Yes, the sky is just a huge curved screen with plenty of white pixels.

Hubble should be scientifically correct.... (0)

zav42 (584609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599430)

If I want artistic freedom, I can watch video games or movies (where lots of hubble images end up anyway). So the more scientifically correct you can get, the better. Using non natural colors is OK, but even then it would be good if every movie / image would identify which colors are original and what is artistic freedom. I suspect a large number of people believe that many artistically colored images show normal spectrum images. -Bernd

I am color blind. Can I see the stereo 3-D movies (1)

complete loony (663508) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599452)

Q: I am color blind. Can I see the stereo 3-D movies?

A: Unfortunately, no. The anaglyph stereo 3-D technique relies on colors to separate the left and right eye images. If one can not see or distinguish between certain colors, then the anaglyph stereo 3-D effect will not work.

[citation needed].

I fail to see how being unable to distinguish between colors has any effect on a filter placed in front of your eyes... By the time your eyes see the image it's basically monochrome.

Re:I am color blind. Can I see the stereo 3-D movi (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599584)

I fail to see how [...]

Then you're probably colorblind.

Re:I am color blind. Can I see the stereo 3-D movi (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599926)

In theory, it should make no difference. In practice, if the brain of a color blind individual perceives one image as being brighter than the other, it won't be able to combine the images.

Re:I am color blind. Can I see the stereo 3-D movi (2, Insightful)

comic-not (316313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33601126)

I am color blind, lacking the ability to see red light. The red-cyan glasses don't work for me because from my point of view the red lens is completely opaque (black) and the cyan lens completely translucent (clear). Thus, you could simulate my experience with the glasses by covering your left eye with your hand and watching the movie with your right eye only. It's not exactly an improvement ...

Re:I am color blind. Can I see the stereo 3-D movi (1)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 3 years ago | (#33601792)

I am color blind, lacking the ability to see red light.

Have you ever had the feeling that nature intended you to mistakenly eat some poisonous fruit as a means of population control? If I were you, I'd be pissed and probably do everything in my power to increase my carbon footprint.

Really? (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 3 years ago | (#33607036)

Is it true that you actually cannot detect red light at all? So a red filter, and even a room lit only by a red light bulb, look black to you? That would imply that your "red" and "green" cones are not merely mixed up, they are both completely broken (there's a lot of overlap), and that your rods (along with your "blue" cones) are also completely unable to sense 564nm light.

Reading further, it seems that rods are largely inactive in well-lit circumstances, so perhaps they are simply insufficient to detect enough light to balance the blue cones in your other eye. Interesting.

Small parallax problem? (4, Interesting)

Gruturo (141223) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599484)

Given that, outside the solar system, there's hardly anything closer than a couple parsecs except for some very faint objects, and 1 parsec is 1 parallax *second* (as in, 1/3600th of a degree), and it represents the angle formed by watching the same object from 2 observation points spaced 1AU (or 2AU?) apart, does this allow any actual 3d effect to be perceived by the brain? The left/right image separation should be insufficient (unless of course the content has been heavily software processed).

Also, please, don't release anaglyphs, there's a lot of different video hardware to enable 3d vision. Just release video with the left/right frames (side-by-side, above/below, alternating, you choose) and let each of us view it optimally on our hardware. There's plenty of software [jpn.org] to accomplish that, even java applets and browser plugins.

Re:Small parallax problem? (4, Interesting)

rwllama (587787) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599936)

Yes, of course the camera separation is much wider than human eye separation. The camera motion is also probably faster than the speed of light. As you correctly infer, scientifically accurate visualizations of what the human eye would see moving at currently achievable speeds would look no different than the original Hubble image. What would be the point in releasing such a visualization?

Thank you for your comments on 3D formats. We did not feel that enough of the public has 3D hardware today, but a reasonable number might have anaglyph glasses. If we do future projects, we will increase the formats as appropriate.

Re:Small parallax problem? (1)

orgelspieler (865795) | more than 3 years ago | (#33601964)

Since the effective motion would be so fast, did you guys try to emulate any relativistic effects? Or is it just Newtonian motion? Getting to see things like length contraction (well, Terrell rotation, anyway) and the Doppler effect would be pretty cool, even if they were just artistic renditions.

Re:Small parallax problem? (1)

rwllama (587787) | more than 3 years ago | (#33602320)

No, we did not attempt to include relativistic effects. If we were creating a video to explain special/general relativity, we would include them. Otherwise, such effects would be too confusing for the average viewer, especially since this movie has no narration.

Re:Small parallax problem? (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#33602096)

One does not need any hardware for side-by-side (except probably a Hallmark card for parallel side-by-side)

Re:Small parallax problem? (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 3 years ago | (#33607222)

First up, thanks for this - would love to see more 3D astronomical visualisations like this.

If we do future projects, we will increase the formats as appropriate.

I believe the OP was not requesting more formats, but that you release material in a format that is more easily translatable to other formats. Side-by-side can be viewed directly by many people without requiring glasses, but more importantly it can be converted automatically and on-the-fly (by YouTube or the software he linked or something like this [proggies2go.org] ) to other formats, including red/cyan, green/magenta, crosseyed, mirrored, or page-flipped for those with shutter glasses.

This would greatly increase the viewing audience (many of whom have green/magenta glasses instead of red/cyan) as well as the quality of the result for those with better equipment.

Re:Small parallax problem? (1)

Have Brain Will Rent (1031664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33604384)

I don't know if the video will produce a 3D effect in the brain - I"m guessing yes or they wouldn't have released it (and remember the "artistic license" they mentioned). I do know that if you look through an actual telescope using a binocular eyepiece holder that what you perceive is significantly different than if you just look using one eye. To be clear that means a telescope with one optical train, i.e. what most people think of when they think telescope, and in the eyepiece holder there is an adapter to split the image to go to two eyepieces so the user can look with both eyes simultaneously. Apparently the brain does do something with the duplicated info, because people report seeing more detail etc. etc.

There are also binocular telescopes which are essentially a giant set of binoculars... again not enough separation for real depth perception but people report it as being an enhanced viewing experience. And of course people frequently use regular binoculars in amateur astronomy - it's one of the recommended things to do when starting out.

Re:Small parallax problem? (1)

arisvega (1414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#33608114)

Just release video with the left/right frames (side-by-side, above/below, alternating, you choose) and let each of us view it optimally on our hardware.

... or just release the raw data!

Parallel view 3D please! (1)

dustbunny76 (1221798) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599490)

Cool! But parallel viewing works just fine, too. How 'bout a version in that?

Re:Parallel view 3D please! (2, Interesting)

Kiaser Zohsay (20134) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599752)

Cool! But parallel viewing works just fine, too. How 'bout a version in that?

I have always preferred cross-eyed free-viewing. I can't cross my eyes outward, so I can only use parallel for images smaller than my ocular distance. Anyone who has never tried either one should look into it [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Parallel view 3D please! (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599854)

Either way works, but parallel viewing typically only works for fairly small images. It is not really crossing your eyes outward; really about the best most anyone can do is to focus to infinity: both eyes pointed in a perfectly parallel direction. At a close enough range, you will of course see double, but there is a pretty small limit on the size of the image that can be viewed by this method. I found cross-eyed to be quite a bit trickier to master, but it allows much larger images to be viewed stereoscopically.

Re:Parallel view 3D please! (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599796)

Have this man drawn and quartered! It’ll be cross-eyed viewing for me, please!

(Actually, I don’t have a pair of 3D glasses. And we don’t need no steenkin glasses anyway.)

Haha! I have glasses! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33599526)

Don't tell me that I'm the only one who has anaglyph glasses within arm's reach of the computer. Anyway, this video's not that great of an effect. It's kind of disappointing.

Re:Haha! I have glasses! (1)

akanothing (1332641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33600562)

Don't tell me that I'm the only one who has anaglyph glasses within arm's reach of the computer.

My anaglyph glasses are ALWAYS within arms reach when i am at my computer. Funnily enough I'm not even one of those people who get to use them to analyze molecules either, just a rabid survivor of the 80's 3D phenomenon.

didn't see any aliens, space weapons, spy gear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33599534)

so it's obviously a work of fiction/misinformation/take your eye off the billionerrors 'ball'.

If this were posted to photo.net... (4, Funny)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599542)

Ouch - this is the best that Hubble can do? The images show serious chromatic aberrations, with significant red-blue fringing on edges. What's worse is that the effect gets more pronounced as the camera moves around. They should really consider ditching the point-and-shoot and movie up to an SLR with a decent carl-zeiss lens if they want to be taken seriously.

Re:If this were posted to photo.net... (1)

hack slash (1064002) | more than 3 years ago | (#33600812)

re: decent carl-zeiss lens

If only their photography knowledge passed on to their LCD video glasses division, then their Zeiss Cinemizer LCD video glasses wouldn't suck.

For a company with a reputation of producing high quality lenses for cameras I was very suprised at just how bad the lenses were on their Cinemizers, the two different Sony Glasstron LCD video glasses I have are over 10 years older than the Cinemizers and have much superior optics, as do the Olympus EyeTrek's.
I can happily wear my Sony PLM-s700's for an hour or two whilst watching a movie or playing a video game on them but I struggle with the Cinemizers, even with their individiual diopter focus control.

The only reason I'm hanging on to the Cinemizers is that they can do 3D by feeding in a side-by-side 3D video into them it will split & stretch the video to each eye.

Re:If this were posted to photo.net... (1)

Bud (1705) | more than 3 years ago | (#33609274)

Ouch - this is the best that Hubble can do? The images show serious chromatic aberrations, with significant red-blue fringing on edges. What's worse is that the effect gets more pronounced as the camera moves around.

Given that the camera moves at relativistic speeds, the chromic aberrations are probably a relativistic effect and would of course get more pronounced the faster the camera moves. Another interesting side effect is that while for you the movie is over in a matter of minutes, someone observing you will feel that the movie takes too long, and incidentally also perceive you as significantly smaller.

Kids, don't try this at home!

--Bud

Not annoying at all (1)

mapuche (41699) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599552)

Depth perception is what space images lack. We have colors, movement, but no depth.

I've anaglyph lenses. It seems your visualization is a simulated stereo taken from one image instead of two eyes, because all the layers look flat, like images in cards. I hope with time you develop a better simulation technique to increase the immersion.

Re:Not annoying at all (3, Informative)

rwllama (587787) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599716)

The visualization does uses separate left and right cameras. However, I forgot to mention in the posting that the "3D" is mostly "2.5D". We have no information about what the backside of the nebula looks like, so we could only do full 3D modeling if we artistically created volumes and pixels that Hubble does not observe. We did some of that for the "Hubble 3D" film, but did not invest such time on this project. We did sculpt the front side of the clouds in the nebula into landscapes, but the camera path stays mostly in front, so the sculpting is not that obvious. We are testing to see how much effort is required to get "enough" immersion.

Re:Not annoying at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33600606)

Hey MODS! This is the guy or gal that did the work, please mod up so people who filter can see these posts.

Suggestion for improvement (1)

Artifice_Eternity (306661) | more than 3 years ago | (#33601146)

This was an interesting experiment! I've enjoyed looking at Mars rover anaglyphs, and I think it makes sense to visualize interstellar phenomena in 3D as well. I'm a big fan of anaglyphs, because they are easy to transmit and reproduce, even if the color reproduction is poor.

A problem I see with this clip is that there's much inconsistency as objects pass on to or off of the edges of the screen. When something passes off the edge, it disappears for 1 eye first, then the other eye. This is very distracting.

An Iranian stereoscopic photographer has come up with a "floating window" technique that can eliminate some of these distracting effects. More info is available here:

http://www.3diran3d.ir/Floating-Window/

Uhhhh... (0, Flamebait)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599554)

Why are "you at the Hubble Space Telescope" wasting your time asking slashdot users what they want? Don't you have better things to do?

Re:Uhhhh... (1)

Ambiguous Puzuma (1134017) | more than 3 years ago | (#33603434)

Someone has to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers--think of it as a long term investment in our future. And I think it's a good idea to ask science minded outsiders how they can do so more effectively.

An uncle once gave me, as a birthday gift, a giant book with colorful full-page images of our solar system (captured by Voyager probes, etc.) It had quite an impact on me as a child.

Re:Uhhhh... (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605590)

Someone has to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers--think of it as a long term investment in our future. And I think it's a good idea to ask science minded outsiders how they can do so more effectively.

So, why would you choose slashdot, rather than some other place, with more intelligent and science-minded people? Slashdot seems to be mostly computing platform bigots and right-wing zealots these days.

To Answer The Actual Question... (2, Interesting)

darien.train (1752510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599690)

If you design the experience properly you don't have to choose between an artistic and scientifically accurate rendering of the Hubble material. You can first show the artistic version and then add a scientific overlay with a basic set of data (what you're looking at, distance from earth, chemical makeup, etc). You can then transition into the wonky scientific version for a final pan across the subject matter so that you're representing the needs of multiple viewers. A decent 3D Info-graphics template can look really cool and add some production value without breaking your budget as well.

If I someone at Hubble was actually interested I'd be willing to donate some time in making a storyboard that illustrates the concept.

Artistic interpretation (1)

mr_gorkajuice (1347383) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599862)

We would love to hear the Slashdot crowd feedback on whether you want more, are artistic interpretations of scientific data acceptable

To be honest, I always have that "why? Isn't it impressive enough as it is?" when artistic interpretations are applied to astronomy. Whenever I'm shown amazing pictures of galaxies and gigantic colored gas clouds, and I go all "Whoa, so cool!", I die a little inside when I scroll down to the small text mentioning artistic interpretation.
I suspect the known universe has plenty of beautiful sights as it is, and every time astronomy-sites feel the need to involve artistic interpretations, I'm left wondering if the universe is in fact not at all as beautiful as I want it to be, or if it's just that all our technology isn't adequate to actually produce a decent image.
Artistic interpretations makes it feel like astronomers need to tell us a lie to keep us interested.

And you are funded by whom? (0)

fwr (69372) | more than 3 years ago | (#33599906)

If you are funded by the US government, then I would say no, don't waste any more of your time our our money on this. If you are privately funded, then sure, go ahead.

I tried my own glasses... (1)

thrill12 (711899) | more than 3 years ago | (#33600054)

but somehow it failed miserably and I didn't see anything. I used these [bit.ly] . What am I doing wrong ?

PS should I perhaps print them on glossy paper ?
)

'Hubble 3D' Imax film. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33600624)

where can i see this and where can i get some acid?

Anaglyph... bleh (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33600704)

Give me good old side-by-side parallel viewing any way. Requires a bit of effort to focus the right way, but once you've got the trick it's pretty easy to even play games this way. I remember an old Quake1 patch for that. Made the game feel a lot more real and yet easier to play. The sense of depth helped a lot.

Mason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33601640)

I enjoyed watching it, however I think you should offer a download of a true 3D format so I could use my 3D vision which gives a much more clear picture.

3D TV content (1)

jelwell (2152) | more than 3 years ago | (#33602374)

I have one of the new 3D TVs. Like Nvidia's real3D, my Samsung LED based LCD TV can view various 3d formats natively (off a USB drive, or streamed over a dlna device). Including "Side by Side" and "Top & Bottom". Other 3d formats can be viewed as outputted from a computer like interlaced (field sequential), Line by Line, Vertical Strip and Checkerboard. There isn't a lot of content available for these Televisions, so with the right marketing you'd get a lot of interest from owners.
Joseph Elwell.

Re:3D TV content (1)

rwllama (587787) | more than 3 years ago | (#33603760)

We are interested in producing files that folks could watch directly on their 3D HDTV via USB, but have not figured out the encoding to use. In looking at the Samsung Media Play supported video formats, none of them jump out at me as being side-by-side, top-bottom, or other obviously 3D aspect ratios. They are all listed as 1920x1080 (with a couple 800x600). Hence, one could do a 1/2 width side-by-side or 1/2 height top-bottom, but not a full resolution or the Blu-ray 3D format of 1920x2205 at 24 fps. Have you done 3D off a USB stick on your Samsung? What is the encoding that tells the TV to activate 3D mode? How does the TV know a file is 1/2 width side-by-side 1920x1080 vs a normal 1920x1080 movie?

Re:3D TV content (1)

jelwell (2152) | more than 3 years ago | (#33604760)

My Samsung TV can read every codec I've given it. You can grab the manual here:
http://www.samsung.com/us/support/downloads/UN40C7000WFXZA [samsung.com]
Page 40 lists the available codec support.
Page 20 explains how the 3D feature works.

Your confusion about which codec to use might be because the content you produce (just like anaglyph content) is a 2D video. A "Side by Side" video, as played in VLC, will just look like 2 2D images playing next to each other - because that's all it is. People use mkvmerge to take the left eye and right eye and composite them together, literally next to each other. Unfortunately I have not found a simple to use tool that will convert between 3D formats - only tools that will stream.

Here's how it works from a customer's (me) perspective:
when I plug a USB stick in with a 3D mkv file
I start the Media Play feature
I browse to the movie I want and hit play
I pause the movie
I hit the 3D button on my remote control
The TV asks me which format the movie is in, either "Side by Side" or "Top-Bottom", or "2D -> 3D" (which is for 2D content).
I select the appropriate format, so far most content I've found is "Side by Side".
I put my glasses on.
I hit play (because I paused it before because turning on 3D takes a few moments).
Done.

If there's a way to inform the TV that the content is 3D, I have not yet found it. Although, the manual mentions this feature:
        "3D Auto View (Off / On): If 3D Auto View is set to On, a “Side-by-Side” format HDMI signal with one of the resolutions below is automatically switched to 3D. Here, correct 3D information must be sent from the Standard HDMI 3D Format.
          If a 3D failure occurs due to a 3D information error, set 3D Auto View to Off and manually select a 3D Mode using the 3D button or corresponding menu.
          Support resolution (16:9 only)
        1280 x 720p 60 Hz
        1920 x 1080i 60 Hz
        1920 x 1080p 24 / 30 / 60 Hz"

I'd be more than happy to help you test out your video files. You can email me. My slashdot username and my yahoo email account share the same handle.

I have a friend with the Nvidia setup and he can view pretty much all the 3D content that I've found. I have to use stereoscopic player, outputting a signal to my TV, in order to view other formats than the 2 I listed. And of course, Stereoscopic player will convert pretty much any format to any other format (except anaglyph formats can only be a target, not an input format).

Here's some sample 3D content you can compare with:
http://www.3dtv.at/Movies/Index_en.aspx [3dtv.at]
One caveat, I haven't actually tested that content on my TV. Most of it probably works fine, although some might be too high a resolution to support using Media Play - but I can play those from my Mac outputting over HDMI (but that's more annoying than Media Play).
Joseph Elwell.

For those without 3D glasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33602516)

Normal video [hubblesite.org]

We at the Hubble Space Telescope... (1)

Saberwind (50430) | more than 3 years ago | (#33602678)

When did the HST become a manned satellite?

PAINFUL -- too much bleed through the red filter (1)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33602808)

Oh, come on, guys! That was just really poorly done. The whole idea of anaglyph is to try to make as much filtered out in each eye as possible. Obviously no one really looked at this or else they used something other than "normal" shades of red/cyan. Close the right eye and there is a ton of ghosting through the red filter.

I'm a big proponent of 3D, but only when it's done right. This was actually painful to look at.

Throw it up on Youtube (1)

leks (844371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33603926)

NASA should post the 3D stuff to Youtube with a 'yt3d' tag and let Youtube do all the work as far as 3D formatting. Anaglyph, SBS, Interleave and many others which will let you watch with pretty much any 3D displaying device, including modern 3DTV's

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33604080)

My son would love to connect up the Hubble Anaglyph with orbiter.org and blender.org simulations.
His generation is technically capable of using these simulations in interactive ways.
Can Hubble create tutorials for integrating these Anaglyph into processing.org, blender.org and orbiter.org?

My son (14) is now despondent over NASA cutbacks and the recent ISS work showing humans will die of AIDS like thymus failure in long space travel.
Mice thymus fails within 6 months in microgravity. Mice get colon cancer and coats turn grey.
Astronauts also show the loss of bone, muscle, and immune system consistent with mouse studies.
UofAz created microarray for thymus failure.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20213684
Thymus failure in AIDS.
http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/GeneMachine/105293

Wonderful! Great! More!! (1)

quixote9 (999874) | more than 3 years ago | (#33605056)

I need at least a three hour-long movie. Possibly days' worth. Go for it!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...