201Views25Replies

Author Options:

Anybody want a neat idea for a project? Answered


This is a project that really needs to be done for real, but I don't have the resources right now.

Come on, folk, get on it.

From XKCD.

Discussions

0
user
jeff-o

6 years ago

I'd like to see this used in a 3D movie in a theater someday. Ooooh, imagine seeing this on an IMAX screen!

Look at me go, I'm a giant!

Do this with two cameras on really big kites, about a hundred metres apart.

That would make the viewer extremely seasick very quickly. Your 3D depth perception is possible because your eyes are a fixed distance apart, and you brain (technically, the V3 or V4, I don't recall which, visual centers in your brain) knows that.

If you set up a system with variable separation, your brain will interpret it as objects changing their size and distance uncontrollably. This is quite similar to the visual and proprioceptive hallucinations induced by some psychoactive drugs (THC and psilocybin, for example).

So basically it would be weed and schrooms on DVD. :D

Hey! How come your post didn't get caught in the filters, eh?

So I've just invented a hallucination simulator? ...neat.

Kites can be faairly stable, but a metre sway on a hundred metre long bit of string isn't much at all.

Buildings? Mountains? Charter planes?

The XKCD idea of placing them on goal posts at either end of an American football field seems quite reasonable. You could do the same with a (real) football pitch, provided hooligans don't come in and steal the Webcams from atop the nets :-)

If I had $100 to spare, I'd totally do this.

Dude, can I get a hit off that doobie? You must have some primo stuff!

It's the eyes, man, the independent eyes...

Kites I can do (and they wouldn't need to be that big) - it's the two webcams and enough kit to use them 100m apart that's the problem.

It would be pretty cool to see this done in 3D video...

That's why I said "kit", not "cables".

I still don't have them.

As someone points out on the XKCD fora, the length of a football field might not be necessary. The average interocular distance is only something like 65mm, so stretching it out to 10 metres (a cheap 5m USB extender cable on each webcam in opposite directions) would increase that by a factor of about 150.

Anecdotally, stereo vision works best at distances below 10m, which means a 10m baseline would provide good depth perception up to 1500m (almost a mile), easily enough to play with low-level clouds.

If you wanted a nice parallax view of your local mountain range tens of miles away, then a hundred metre baseline would be better- then you'd probably be best off getting two friends a few streets apart to aim their webcams in the same direction and use the web to get both feeds.

I can't decide in advance, but I have a hunch that seeing mountains in such "wide 3D" might actually make them seem smaller (they'd "have" to be small, because they'll "have" to be close, or you wouldn't get such a big difference in the views from each eye).

That last frame might be true...

You should do it...

I don't have the kit, and, since I have just received my last payslip for the foreseeable future, I can't really justify buying it on the inspiration of a comic strip.

Didn't read the comments, eh?

3D aerial photography or aerial stereoscopy was used from the beginning of aviation, Kiteman. It is the same principle.

Except this is looking upwards, and streams live video.

Yes, but taking two images from two different places, you have a 3D pair. They look them with stereoscopes to detect orographic details.

Besides, at first there was only photos, no videos.


OK I get it, that's interesting...

L

I saw this, this morning and thought about putting it up here...