"Flip picture"? If by "flip picture" you mean a flipbook, projectors and TVs make use of the same phenomenon: it's called persistence of vision, and it has nothing to do with 3D.
flip picture as in you have a picture, like Pokemon flix pix, where it makes an illusion, when you turn the card to one side another then you get a cheap effect of some in "3D". I must explain what I can't "see", and that is the "3D" effect from "3D" glasses. That is what the eye astigmatism does. And that includes the old version of "3D" glasses (red and blue glasses) and the new version.
No offense, but why do you call it a "cheap effect" if you don't even know what it's like? I'm not trying to start a big argument or something, I'm just trying to wrap my head around what you said; you're basically making judgements about something you've never experienced.
la li lu le lo makes good point if you can't see it, how can you call it cheap? I'm not on the 3d band wagon, but i've seen some IMPRESSIVE 3D. It's all dependant on how it's made.
Both of you have great points, but to me. It would be a cheap effect, but some packages are expensive for the illusion. The difference between me, not getting the illusion and you guys. Is I enjoy what I see, and I do not need to get an illusion to see something cool. Also, that is why I mentioned a holographic projector who really showed a game in 3D. I still think about the guy who made some awesome (in my mind) wii 3D stuff, where he used his goggles. If some body made a game console with that stuff, then maybe I could be in a bit more of an awe feeling. But I am not. And a flip picture effect is still cheap, even though it comes in an expensive package. Cause I can see "the sweet spot flip picture 3D effect" that the 3DS makes.
Video/film is also an illusion, based on the persistence of vision thing I mentioned before. So are videogames. And I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say you can see the 3DS 3D effect. You said (or implied anyway) that you can't see in 3D. You have to have stereoscopic vision to see the 3D image the 3DS produces. I should also point out that I am not on the "3D bandwagon" per say, either. I have a 3DS, but that's mainly for the games (pending), and the 3D effect is sort of a nice bonus. I do think that 3D is the way of the future, but I don't think the technology is quite there yet, nor is the market. There actually are some hologram-type things already, just nothing mass-marketable. Sony has a little tube that displays a solid 3D image that you can walk around and see from different angles. There are some medical imaging devices that create a similar effect through vertically stacked transparent LCD screens. There are obviously limitations to those devices, but I do think a real, floating hologram-ish thing is possible, and it probably isn't too far away. Sorry to derail the thread.
i'm not sure you're properly seeing the 3D effect that the 3DS is capable of. It's the same 3D effect used in the new 3D TV's, commputer monitors, and similar to the 3D in theaters... I think your eyes are giving you an effect different than intended
The effect on the 3DS is not the same as on "3D TVs", cause you need some kind of glasses to experience the "3D tv" . But the 3DS way of making people see the 3D effect, is basically a way of cheating your eyes into seeing a 3D surface on a 2D screen(a holographic effect), hence I mentioned the "flip pic" effect from before. Not even the old "3D comics" (2D with some very funky colours) from way back would give me the illusion, except a headache. But if some people still do not get what I am saying, then here goes. I see the world in 3D as any one else. But the illusion of 3D on certain things is something I can not get, thanks to the eye astigmatism. Or as in, "you feel like it is right in front of your eyes and you get the feeling of being right in the middle of things, in the film, game etc." if I have to over exaggerate .
um no the 3DS screen uses a similar technique to the 3D televisions. Just the glasses are built into the screen rather than on your eyes. That's why the 3D without glasses works on small screens (such as phones and the 3DS) and not on large TVs. it's the same concept, except instead of having the screen and you put the shutter lenses on - the screen has a shutter/switching technique built into the screen. Neither are "holographic", both have the concept of something 3D on a 2D field. Both give you the illusion of having things project forward as well as having the illusion of depth into the 2D pane (either the TV or the 3DS). Don't argue with me on this - I give demonstrations on both of these, every day at work and have had to go to training seminars from both Nintendo and the major 3D TV companies to be able to properly explain how the technology works. If you have ANY eye issues, such as you described, you are NOT seeing the 3D image other people can. Period. You're not seeing the 3D they had in mind. End of story. You are rapidly contradicting yourself, "i see 3D as anyone else" and "certain things I cannot see in 3D" do not belong in the same sentence. the moment you say you can not see certain things in 3D - you are not seeing it the same as everyone else. Done deal.
okay I can not see the illusion with the red and blue glasses cause that I have never felt was my sense of 3D. And that is the truth, and perhaps the new electronic shit glasses I tried . Just did not work at FONA.
XxHennersXx: Uh... what? I thought the 3DS used a parallax barrier, which has nothing to do with shutters. How would shutters even work without glasses? i.e. how would making the image flicker rapidly make you perceive different images in each eye if both eyes are looking at the same image? WolverineDK: I think you may be confused about what people mean when they say "3D." This may be of some help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_disparity
i wasn't saying it's got shutter lenses, just that it's technique built in. I was trying to break it down as laymen as possible. lol
3DS hasn't convinced me so far. I can see the effect, but it either gives me a headache after 15 minutes so I'd rather turn it off, or it's really supplemental and not nicer or an improvement over the 2D version. Retro games in 3D could be nice if the enhancement is done correctly, but I doubt it would make any sense on a small device like a 3DS. People suggested Thunder Force IV and Space Harrier, but seriously - they'd play like shit on such a small display. Especially with the wonky 3D effect applied to them. No, thank you, I'm just fine playing them on a TV. Then again, nice 3D effects on a large 3D-TV with emulated scanlines... that could turn out nice.
Am I missing something here? And again, everything I've read on the internet says that it uses a parallax barrier, which has nothing to do with shutters.
No, I misphrased what i was saying. I was saying it has it's own 3D technique built into the screen, similar to how the glasses do the shuttering to trick one eye to do one thing and the other eye to do the other, using the glasses as an example. Not that the glasses use shutters. I wasn't trying to say it uses active shutters, just that it has it's 3D technique built into the screen, and that it was not holographic as WDK said. Bad wording, i'm not quite sure how to explain what i was trying to say lol.
They're similar in that they produce a similar effect (i.e. a full color 3D image), but the way that they do it is completely different. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_barrier That doesn't describe it in much depth, but it gives you a general idea. EDIT: http://www.mcs.anl.gov/uploads/cels/papers/P1438.pdf This paper has a better illustration, and a brief explanation of a normal parallax barrier (like the one used in the 3DS) in the "Background" section.
