Quote:
Originally Posted by imjay 
Okay - but I'll stay a bit "dense" for one more go cause I'm not sure I got a complete answer (no offense) - maybe I just still don't understand.
I sat in a theater and my eyeballs watched a screen image. Parts of that image looked out of whack but when I put the glasses on it became "3D".
The 3D screen image content appears on the theater screen at the same time. I'm not talking about dual 60 cycle stereo projection that requires shutter glasses. So, if my eyeballs can see the entire image why not a capture device or camera?
The Theater showing Avatar in 3D used simple passive glasses with polarized lenses - not shutter type. Cheap things that we were allowed to tote out of the theater and I am sitting here looking at them.
So, back to my question.
If you can capture the 3D screen image on the theater screen and then play those captured full screen images via a legacy PJ and wall screen and you wear the glasses why won't you see the screen image exactly as your eyes saw it in the theater?

Okay - but I'll stay a bit "dense" for one more go cause I'm not sure I got a complete answer (no offense) - maybe I just still don't understand.
I sat in a theater and my eyeballs watched a screen image. Parts of that image looked out of whack but when I put the glasses on it became "3D".
The 3D screen image content appears on the theater screen at the same time. I'm not talking about dual 60 cycle stereo projection that requires shutter glasses. So, if my eyeballs can see the entire image why not a capture device or camera?
The Theater showing Avatar in 3D used simple passive glasses with polarized lenses - not shutter type. Cheap things that we were allowed to tote out of the theater and I am sitting here looking at them.
So, back to my question.
If you can capture the 3D screen image on the theater screen and then play those captured full screen images via a legacy PJ and wall screen and you wear the glasses why won't you see the screen image exactly as your eyes saw it in the theater?
Because it's not anaglyph. Recording with a single camera would record both eye's images as one image, thus destroying steroscopy.
While it looked like a single image in the theater, you were actually seeing 2 separate images overlapping one another.
Each image was either A. Polarized differently B. Color filtered via Dolby 3D/Infinitec, or, less likely C. Frame sequential through LCD shutter-glasses.
It sounds like you saw a polarized presentation. The only way of reproducing this at home is with 2 projectors, each with different polarizing filters and matching polarized glasses.
The only way (practically) of being able to walk into a theater with a single video camera and record a 3D movie is if that movie was a crappy anaglyph (red/green) presentation.
Otherwise you would need 2 cameras, 2 lenses/filters matching 3D presentation (dolby 3d, RealD, imax...etc) and both cameras would need to be aligned properly with screen. Then once you got home you would have combine the two video streams into a single file/format that is readable by stereo3D player software OR if you had a fast enough computer play both videos at the same time on different video ports...or play each video on separate computers synced to each other.















, I'll ask this question. What compromises, if any, in the widely-accepted quality of the HD65 would be necessary to make it a 3d projector?



