>>But as with regard to the 'sunglasses' this is one of the problems with the 'ColorCode' system that >>has been used a number of times for TV based 3D
Just to clarify some assumptions regarding the ColorCode 3-D™ system.
The light transmission difference between the blue and amber filters is less than 20% (compared to i.e.. red/cyan Anaglyph that has a difference of around 80%) and will not create Pulfrich’s effect.
The reason that some people might see a blockage of the right (blue) eye using ColorCode 3-D is usually because they have an artificial light source in their viewing environment, which contains a lot of red and yellow light. The blue filter blocks this light because red and yellow are complementary colours to blue. ColorCode 3-D is balanced for viewing in 6500K light also known as D65 (daylight) and a good way to demonstrate this is to put on a ColorCodeViewer and look out the window (in bright daylight) where the view from the two eyes will be balanced just like on a display with a white point of D65 in a room with either dim ambient light or the room light turned off (which is better for any 3-D experience).
For the best possible results the screen should also be calibrated/set to neutral colours.
Regarding the comments about being part of a disaster in the making, I guess that any attention...
And honestly I am personally (I guess that otherwise I should have worked with something else) very impressed with the quality ColorCode 3-D can deliver. The purpose of ColorCode 3-D is not to compete with future 3-D TV and Cinema solutions but to deliver a high quality 3-D system that works on any existing display type and thereby enabling 3-D for the masses and business possibilities for 3-D today.
I know some people, especially on this list, will argue on the quality of ColorCode 3-D, but from my experience the quality of the content should be much more for people to worry about than any viewing system used. Shit in - shit out, as some would have phrased it...
It is true that Channel 4 in Great Britain will be using ColorCode 3-D for a 3-D week in November and 10 million ColorCodeViewers will be given away in connection to that. So a disaster or not, we'll have to wait and see. And if we are disastrous I am glad that the human nature is of the art that it tends to remember good moments better than bad and I am sure in 5 - 10 years when 3-D TVs are becoming more common, people are ready to give it a new try.
And for those of you who are not looking too far into the future you are always welcome to contact me to discuss how we can start making business out of 3-D today...
If you are just curious about the system we do also offer a free 60 second ColorCode CX Pro test encoding of any of your content for a fair evaluation.
International Sales Manager
ColorCode 3-D Center
Getting a strong feeling of Deja-vu here...
Alexander Lentjes wrote:
>> Getting a strong feeling of Deja-vu here...
Maybe due to the pulfrich effect you're getting from the colour code glasses
>> The light transmission difference between the blue and amber filters is less than 20% (compared >>to i.e.. red/cyan Anaglyph that has a difference of around 80%) and will not create Pulfrich effect.
That's great, thanks for giving me a good chuckle today, Andreas!
>> enabling 3-D for the masses and business possibilities for 3-D today
Sounds like another short term 3D Ponsie investment scheme, that will turn many pairs of eyes from long term Real Deployment of Z space bonds.
Max "3D broker" Penner
Paradise F.X. Corp.
7011 Hayvenhurst Ave. Suite A
Van Nuys, Ca. 91406
London cell 07542142966
Mobile +1.310.864.5124 www.paradisefx.com
Andreas Krona wrote:
>>Regarding the comments about being part of a disaster in the making, I guess that any attention...
I'm the one who made the "disaster in the making" comment. I get no pleasure from criticizing your product. My first impulse is to want any entrepreneur to succeed, especially one working on 3D viewing technologies. I'm sure you earnestly believe in your product and I don't think you're trying to perpetrate any sort of scam. My personal exposure to ColorCode has been limited. I didn't find it a bad experience, nor was I particularly impressed. It does seem to be an improvement over previous anaglyphic processes, but that's somewhat damning it with faint praise. Your system appears to have a place in the 3D ecosystem. You have customers. That's indicative of something.
I just don't see it as a helpful or meaningful bridge to a more advanced, mainstream 3DTV product. I would personally prefer no 3DTV to 3DTV about which viewers are either negative or even neutral. And I certainly don't agree that people only remember the good parts of an experience and not the bad, especially when it comes to 3D. But let's see how well the Channel 4 / ColorCode experiment is received in November.
Feel free to rub my nose in any quantifiable success.
How do you substantiate your website claim that ColorCode "improves the visual perception by 400%"? What does that even mean?
>>How do you substantiate your website claim that ColorCode "improves the visual perception by >>400%"? What does that even mean?
The statement about the visual perception is true to any 3-D compared to 2-D (sorry for the unclarity in that expression, I will talk to my colleagues regarding clarifying that) so that could be good to know for anyone trying to sell in the additional cost of a 3-D production...
Here's a scientific article treating the subject :
International Sales Manager
ColorCode 3-D Center
Andreas Krona wrote:
>> "improves the visual perception by 400%"? What does that even mean?
From the abstract:
"Stereoscopic pictures are often said to appear clearer, i.e. less noisy, than flat pictures of the same technical quality."
Is noise even relevant to modern imagery?
And, perhaps it is rude to ask, but can you classify two images as "the same technical quality" when one is missing the blue channel and the other is missing both red and green? I suspect that scenario might not have been included in the research you refer to.
I think there definitely is a perceptual up-rezzing of images when both left and right images are full resolution (eg. a two projector setup), but it isn't 400%. If I had to guess, I would place it between 120-150%.
On second thought, though not noise, typical broadcast compression artifacts will likely be an issue in stereo. Can't help but wonder at the irony when I watch highly compressed "High Definition" content on TV... hey who cares if everybody spent so much money on hardware when we can save 20% on satellite costs... if only we can somehow halve the bit-rate.
Hopefully that won't happen to cinema when tangible delivery becomes a thing of the past... though I hear dropping a few colour channels saves a lot of bandwidth while simultaneously offering a 3dB perceptual gain!
Andreas Krona wrote :
>> The light transmission difference between the blue and amber filters is less than 20%
So if you now take the 30%, 59%, and 11% luminance weighting of the red, green, and blue channels, are you inferring that the blue eye might drop to as low as 8.8% while the combined red+green eye might remain at 89% of the original luminance?
Supervising TD - Stereoscopics
Tim Baier wrote:
>>So if you now take the 30%, 59%, and 11% luminance weighting of the red, green, and blue >>channels, are you inferring that the blue eye might drop to as low as 8.8% while the combined >>red+green eye might remain at 89% of the original luminance?
When you can't do it with electronic engineering, you can do it with genetic engineering.