Originally Posted by cakefoo
It basically controls the Z-axis position of the 3D scene. It either pushes or it pulls, but it does not push and pull at the same time. So it's not a strength setting, it's a depth position setting.
If that were true, they what they're really claiming has nothing to do with perspective, but mere positioning? This would mean that my Avatar movie should not have had the characters stretch along the Z axis (which they do currently) but merely move in front of or behind the TV without alteration?
The eye will get goofed up by this to some extent because as the distance to the TV increases (couch position) the L/R spacing naturally closes in, but the information to each eye remains static. The only result is to give a moving sense of where the image is in Z.
If they truly mean perspective, having written the 3D perspective routines myself in computer graphics (note: not sending the info off to some board, but coding the low level routines), I know you cannot truly pull this off without control over a re-rendering of the scene at the object level itself---each and every polygon. That information is lost the moment either Pixar or the originating camera get done with it. You can crock
similar effect with TVs using the techniques I pointed out: spacing each eye information, and possibly stretching it non-linearly.
But the real question is: whatever it is it's doing
, both the blu-ray player and the TV have their own 3D settings, so how do you keep the two from colliding? Further, part of the 3D settings is to enter the size of the screen, which is absolutely a spacing issue---this enters a 2nd config possibility to the blu-ray player. So it's very likely that the blu-ray is mucking with the 3D image only to have the TV re-muck with it without knowing at all what the blu-ray did. No?
It's analogous to having a device improperly scale an image before sending it to the TV to attempt a re-scale.Edited by tgm1024 - 5/22/13 at 6:42am