Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
NASA Space Build

Hubble In Anaglyph Stereo 3D 114

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the needs-more-naavi dept.
rwllama writes "We at the Hubble Space Telescope have quietly released our first anaglyph (i.e. red/cyan) stereo 3D movie of a flight into a Hubble image. This work is a follow-on to the sequences we produced for the 'Hubble 3D' Imax film. Note that the 3D interpretation uses lots of artistic license, so it is not intended to be scientifically accurate. We would love to hear the Slashdot crowd's feedback on whether you want more, are artistic interpretations of scientific data acceptable, is anaglyph 3D too annoying, how many could watch this with a real 3D (e.g., NVIDIA 3D Vision) setup, etc?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hubble In Anaglyph Stereo 3D

Comments Filter:
  • by Chrisq (894406) on Thursday September 16, 2010 @10:23AM (#33599360)
    First new word I leaned today: Anaglyph [wikipedia.org]
    • All I get is Loading... Loading...

      Looks like you've Slashdotted a Wikipedia page. Bravo! Either that or they're now being hosted on Real's servers.

      • Don't worry, you didn't miss much. Just an attempt at a 3d pan and zoom image. The clip was 29 seconds.

    • by jgagnon (1663075)

      I thought it was Analglyph at first and figured "goatse" followed High Fructose Corn Syrup in the search for a new name.

    • First new word I leaned today

      We words will not be intimidated, no much how much we are leaned on.

      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by CarpetShark (865376)

        Goddamit, I really wish /. had a way to edit comments. Preview is great and all, but not much use when you think you've got it right.

        • He who controls the past controls the future... Honestly... it would really hurt the whole moderation/reply setup as you could just make someone's reply irrelevant with an edit. Slashdot moves to fast for post edits.
          • by bsDaemon (87307)

            [citation needed]

          • It would really hurt the whole moderation/reply setup

            a) then the whole moderation/reply setup is broken and a bug should be filed.
            b) StackOverflow handles it just fine by adding a note to comments saying when they were edited. I think you can also get a diff of the changes, but I might be wrong about that.

    • by Zencyde (850968)

      First new word I leaned today: Anaglyph [wikipedia.org]

      Really? Go get yourself a pair of glasses off Amazon (I paid 10 bucks for 4 sets and one of them is sunglasses shaped!) and download IZ3D's software.
      Anaglyph Drivers [iz3d.com]


      This solution has a bit of ghosting on my TN displays (yeah, 3D+Eyefinity) but would probably work a lot better on a nice IPS or an OLED screen. The more accurate your color reproduction, the closer it ought to be (you can likely manipulate it to better suit your glasses).


      On glasses. There are two basic types. You have gel types, which oft

      • by Zencyde (850968)
        It's bad form to reply to myself but I recommend the ProAna [amazon.com] glasses. After doing research I found that these were on the higher end of the quality list.
    • by Phoghat (1288088)
      Yes but where can I get a pair of red/green glasses? I lost mine a long time ago. Maybe they're under the couch.
  • The 3D YouTube player allows the user to decide if they want to watch a 2D version, a cyan/red version, a real 3D version (i.e. shutter glasses), etc.

    It looks like it could be neat, but without the glasses, it's just a red/blue mess.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by rwllama (587787)
      The 2D version of the movie is available as well: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/29/video/a/ [hubblesite.org]
    • by Thanshin (1188877)

      without the glasses, it's just a red/blue mess.

      Did you expect anything else?

      Do you think anyone would expect anything else? (except the guy who came with the "colorblind can't see 3D" answer. His expectations about removing the glasses were probably that his head would explode, or he'd throw laserbeams or something)

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      FAKE.

      This isn't true 3D, just like the special edition of Nightmare Before Christmas was not true 3D. It's a computer-processed generation, kinda similar to how they used to apply Fake colorization to black-and-white movies.

      • by nacturation (646836) * <[nacturation] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday September 16, 2010 @01:50PM (#33602070) Journal

        FAKE.

        This isn't true 3D, just like the special edition of Nightmare Before Christmas was not true 3D.

        Unfortunately they didn't have the budget to place the cameras 500 light years apart to get a true stereoscopic image of the Large Megallanic Cloud.

      • by Lotharus (900727)
        FTFS: "Note that the 3D interpretation uses lots of artistic license, so it is not intended to be scientifically accurate."

        Right there in the summary. Nobody said it was real / true 3D.

        Next shocking revelation from commodore64_love: The moon is NOT the size of a quarter!
  • Color Blind (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lord Byron II (671689) on Thursday September 16, 2010 @10:26AM (#33599392)

    From TFA:

    "Q: I am color blind. Can I see the stereo 3-D movies?

    A: Unfortunately, no. The anaglyph stereo 3-D technique relies on colors to separate the left and right eye images. If one can not see or distinguish between certain colors, then the anaglyph stereo 3-D effect will not work."

    That's incorrect. The color of the image and the color of the lens is used to direct a false colored monochrome image to each eye. That is, the left eye receives a blue tinted monochrome image and the right eye receives a red tinted monochrome image (or vice-versa).

    For someone who is color blind and can't differentiate red and blue, then they will perceive the color arriving at each eye to be the same. For them, the 3D effect will be even better.

    • For someone who is color blind and can't differentiate red and blue, then they will perceive the color arriving at each eye to be the same. For them, the 3D effect will be even better.

      so you're claiming that there are some for whom red/blue "3d" doesn't suck? because i'm pretty sure it sucks universally.

      p.s. what i'm really hearing is that the next Hubble should be a binocular telescope.

      • Re:Color Blind (Score:4, Insightful)

        by imakemusic (1164993) on Thursday September 16, 2010 @10:59AM (#33599768)

        what i'm really hearing is that the next Hubble should be a binocular telescope.

        I'm guessing here - but I'm sure someone could do some calculations to back me up... I don't think that would work. To get a decent stereo effect the two lenses would have to be some distance apart. I have two eyes but I can't tell the difference between the distance to the moon and the distance to the sun and that's quite some difference. In fact the whole sky could be one flat image as far as my eyes can tell.

        The summary says that they've used a lot of artistic license. I am guessing this means they have exaggerated the difference between what each eye sees based on the known distance of the object. Either that or they've used one image from one point in Hubble's orbit and one image from the opposite point.

        • so increase the distance between them?

          use our experience with the mars rovers and protocols like NTP to coordinate them?

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by sirrunsalot (1575073)

          I'm guessing here - but I'm sure someone could do some calculations to back me up... I don't think that would work. To get a decent stereo effect the two lenses would have to be some distance apart.

          If they're two AU's apart and you look in the right direction, then you have a the idea of a parsec [wikipedia.org].

          If someone will do the calculations? Okay, I'll bite.

          I'll put this in terms of human vision since we're all familiar with that (probably). If your eyes are 2.5 inches apart, then a parallax of an arc second corresponds to an object about 6.5 km away. The Carina nebula is in the neighborhood of 8000 ly away, which is around 2500 pc. Since everything's a nice small angle, that means this nebula is to Earth'

        • You're exactly right. I sometimes make stereographs of mountains by taking two photographs from an airplane going over the mountain. To get the best effect, you don't take two pictures at the same time just a few inches apart. Instead you take one picture, then wait a few seconds as you fly partially over, and then take a second picture. The end effect is similar to looking at a small 3D model of a mountain, which I find more helpful.

          I wouldn't call it artistic license so much as useful manipulation of dat

        • by Alsee (515537)

          I have two eyes but I can't tell the difference between the distance to the moon and the distance to the sun and that's quite some difference.

          You mean you used to have two eyes before you tried that.

          -

    • by XiX36 (715429)
      Well, blue color blindness is rare and red/blue color blindness even more so. I have the red/green variety and 3D tinted glasses never seem to work very well for me.
      • Well, blue color blindness is rare and red/blue color blindness even more so. I have the red/green variety and 3D tinted glasses never seem to work very well for me.

        They don't work very well for anyone, colorblind or not.

    • by Thanshin (1188877)

      The reasoning must've been something like:

      "the pretty pretty colors make the picture fat!"
      Q: "I can no see pretty pretty colors"
      A: "no fat picture for you!"
      Q: Q_Q

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by camperdave (969942)
      It depends on the type of color blindness. The red and cyan filters produce a black and red, and a black and cyan image respectively. If you can't distinguish reds, then the left eye receives a field of black. You'd get as much 3D as a person with a patch over their eye: None.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by clone53421 (1310749)

        If you can’t see reds, then the left eye receives a field of (apparently) black. If you can’t distinguish reds (from greens, i.e. red/green colorblindness), the left eye receives what could (apparently) be either red or green, but it should at least be able to see it.

      • by omnichad (1198475)

        But cyan has green and blue as components, so your 3D effect would be somewhat ruined if you were red/cgreen colorblind.

      • by hedwards (940851)
        That reminds me a while back when I was in to get my eyes checked. Because I've managed to memorize a lot of those tests, they had to go with an alternate, which used red and green lines to check to see if it was in focus. While a person with color blindness in those cones, wouldn't see the colors, it would still work.

        Likewise, while a person wouldn't be able to see the color component they would be able to get a luminescence channel. The main problem would be being more sensitive in one eye than the oth
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Hillbert (935900)
          The red-green test (binocular balancing) does work on anomalous trichromats, i.e. most of the people who are colourblind or colour deficient. Just because you can't distinguish between red and green doesn't change the way the wavelengths focus. (We have to adjust our questions to refer to the right or left side, rather than the red or green, but that's about it.)
          Very few people are missing a particular colour of cones; rather, the light-sensitive pigment is altered by genetics to be most sensitive to a di
    • by mapkinase (958129)

      3D side-by-side is better than anaglyphic that requires glasses. I can see side-by-side without any device.

      Why people are not posting more stereo in side-by-side format?

  • "We at the Hubble Space Telescope have quietly released our first anaglyph ..."

    I can't think of a way to release something to the tech world more quietly than a post to Slashdot. (No, I'm not serious)

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by rwllama (587787)
      Yes, that line in the post was intentionally ironic. We did not trumpet the 3D in the press release for the general public, but if the post made it to slashdot we would be loud to the tech savvy audience who could give us the best feedback.
      • "Yes, that line in the post was intentionally ironic."

        I am not trying to flamebait or troll here, but I have to ask: Are you by any chance aware of the invention of the emoticon? Of course, maybe the Slashdot editors edited it out.

  • Moar Hubble (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Thursday September 16, 2010 @10:29AM (#33599410) Homepage

    I don't care if it's made to be poop color...there are never enough images from the Hubble. Anything they are willing to present is good in my book!

    • I don't care if it's made to be poop color...there are never enough images from the Hubble. Anything they are willing to present is good in my book!

      and this is exactly why, even after reading TFS and TFA, consciously saying to myself "I know I don't have 3D glasses of *any* kind", I still watched the video.

      In full screen.

      And told myself "actually it does look a little 3D."

  • Q: I am color blind. Can I see the stereo 3-D movies?

    A: Unfortunately, no. The anaglyph stereo 3-D technique relies on colors to separate the left and right eye images. If one can not see or distinguish between certain colors, then the anaglyph stereo 3-D effect will not work.

    [citation needed].

    I fail to see how being unable to distinguish between colors has any effect on a filter placed in front of your eyes... By the time your eyes see the image it's basically monochrome.

    • by Thanshin (1188877)

      I fail to see how [...]

      Then you're probably colorblind.

    • In theory, it should make no difference. In practice, if the brain of a color blind individual perceives one image as being brighter than the other, it won't be able to combine the images.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by comic-not (316313)

      I am color blind, lacking the ability to see red light. The red-cyan glasses don't work for me because from my point of view the red lens is completely opaque (black) and the cyan lens completely translucent (clear). Thus, you could simulate my experience with the glasses by covering your left eye with your hand and watching the movie with your right eye only. It's not exactly an improvement ...

      • I am color blind, lacking the ability to see red light.

        Have you ever had the feeling that nature intended you to mistakenly eat some poisonous fruit as a means of population control? If I were you, I'd be pissed and probably do everything in my power to increase my carbon footprint.

      • Is it true that you actually cannot detect red light at all? So a red filter, and even a room lit only by a red light bulb, look black to you? That would imply that your "red" and "green" cones are not merely mixed up, they are both completely broken (there's a lot of overlap), and that your rods (along with your "blue" cones) are also completely unable to sense 564nm light.

        Reading further, it seems that rods are largely inactive in well-lit circumstances, so perhaps they are simply insufficient to detect e

  • by Gruturo (141223) on Thursday September 16, 2010 @10:34AM (#33599484)

    Given that, outside the solar system, there's hardly anything closer than a couple parsecs except for some very faint objects, and 1 parsec is 1 parallax *second* (as in, 1/3600th of a degree), and it represents the angle formed by watching the same object from 2 observation points spaced 1AU (or 2AU?) apart, does this allow any actual 3d effect to be perceived by the brain? The left/right image separation should be insufficient (unless of course the content has been heavily software processed).

    Also, please, don't release anaglyphs, there's a lot of different video hardware to enable 3d vision. Just release video with the left/right frames (side-by-side, above/below, alternating, you choose) and let each of us view it optimally on our hardware. There's plenty of software [jpn.org] to accomplish that, even java applets and browser plugins.

    • by rwllama (587787) on Thursday September 16, 2010 @11:12AM (#33599936)
      Yes, of course the camera separation is much wider than human eye separation. The camera motion is also probably faster than the speed of light. As you correctly infer, scientifically accurate visualizations of what the human eye would see moving at currently achievable speeds would look no different than the original Hubble image. What would be the point in releasing such a visualization?

      Thank you for your comments on 3D formats. We did not feel that enough of the public has 3D hardware today, but a reasonable number might have anaglyph glasses. If we do future projects, we will increase the formats as appropriate.

      • Since the effective motion would be so fast, did you guys try to emulate any relativistic effects? Or is it just Newtonian motion? Getting to see things like length contraction (well, Terrell rotation, anyway) and the Doppler effect would be pretty cool, even if they were just artistic renditions.
        • by rwllama (587787)
          No, we did not attempt to include relativistic effects. If we were creating a video to explain special/general relativity, we would include them. Otherwise, such effects would be too confusing for the average viewer, especially since this movie has no narration.
      • by mapkinase (958129)

        One does not need any hardware for side-by-side (except probably a Hallmark card for parallel side-by-side)

      • by Namarrgon (105036)

        First up, thanks for this - would love to see more 3D astronomical visualisations like this.

        If we do future projects, we will increase the formats as appropriate.

        I believe the OP was not requesting more formats, but that you release material in a format that is more easily translatable to other formats. Side-by-side can be viewed directly by many people without requiring glasses, but more importantly it can be converted automatically and on-the-fly (by YouTube or the software he linked or something like this [proggies2go.org]) to other formats, including red/cyan, green/magenta, crosseyed, mir

        • by rwllama (587787)
          We agree. Our current system does not allow us to release multiple formats in a simple manner. We chose red/cyan anaglyph as a test case. We are quite glad to see that there is demand for a side-by-side version as well as a YouTube version. For the slashdot crowd, conversion of formats and/or download and play through special software is no problem. The general public is the vast majority of our visitors and they generally just want to push play in the browser. What I suspect would make our website folks ha
    • I don't know if the video will produce a 3D effect in the brain - I"m guessing yes or they wouldn't have released it (and remember the "artistic license" they mentioned). I do know that if you look through an actual telescope using a binocular eyepiece holder that what you perceive is significantly different than if you just look using one eye. To be clear that means a telescope with one optical train, i.e. what most people think of when they think telescope, and in the eyepiece holder there is an adapter t
    • by arisvega (1414195)

      Just release video with the left/right frames (side-by-side, above/below, alternating, you choose) and let each of us view it optimally on our hardware.

      ... or just release the raw data!

  • Cool! But parallel viewing works just fine, too. How 'bout a version in that?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kiaser Zohsay (20134)

      Cool! But parallel viewing works just fine, too. How 'bout a version in that?

      I have always preferred cross-eyed free-viewing. I can't cross my eyes outward, so I can only use parallel for images smaller than my ocular distance. Anyone who has never tried either one should look into it [wikipedia.org].

      • Either way works, but parallel viewing typically only works for fairly small images. It is not really crossing your eyes outward; really about the best most anyone can do is to focus to infinity: both eyes pointed in a perfectly parallel direction. At a close enough range, you will of course see double, but there is a pretty small limit on the size of the image that can be viewed by this method. I found cross-eyed to be quite a bit trickier to master, but it allows much larger images to be viewed stereoscop

    • Have this man drawn and quartered! It’ll be cross-eyed viewing for me, please!

      (Actually, I don’t have a pair of 3D glasses. And we don’t need no steenkin glasses anyway.)

  • by Lev13than (581686) on Thursday September 16, 2010 @10:39AM (#33599542) Homepage
    Ouch - this is the best that Hubble can do? The images show serious chromatic aberrations, with significant red-blue fringing on edges. What's worse is that the effect gets more pronounced as the camera moves around. They should really consider ditching the point-and-shoot and movie up to an SLR with a decent carl-zeiss lens if they want to be taken seriously.
    • re: decent carl-zeiss lens

      If only their photography knowledge passed on to their LCD video glasses division, then their Zeiss Cinemizer LCD video glasses wouldn't suck.

      For a company with a reputation of producing high quality lenses for cameras I was very suprised at just how bad the lenses were on their Cinemizers, the two different Sony Glasstron LCD video glasses I have are over 10 years older than the Cinemizers and have much superior optics, as do the Olympus EyeTrek's.
      I can happily wear my Sony P
    • by Bud (1705)

      Ouch - this is the best that Hubble can do? The images show serious chromatic aberrations, with significant red-blue fringing on edges. What's worse is that the effect gets more pronounced as the camera moves around.

      Given that the camera moves at relativistic speeds, the chromic aberrations are probably a relativistic effect and would of course get more pronounced the faster the camera moves. Another interesting side effect is that while for you the movie is over in a matter of minutes, someone observing you will feel that the movie takes too long, and incidentally also perceive you as significantly smaller.

      Kids, don't try this at home!

      --Bud

  • Depth perception is what space images lack. We have colors, movement, but no depth.

    I've anaglyph lenses. It seems your visualization is a simulated stereo taken from one image instead of two eyes, because all the layers look flat, like images in cards. I hope with time you develop a better simulation technique to increase the immersion.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rwllama (587787)
      The visualization does uses separate left and right cameras. However, I forgot to mention in the posting that the "3D" is mostly "2.5D". We have no information about what the backside of the nebula looks like, so we could only do full 3D modeling if we artistically created volumes and pixels that Hubble does not observe. We did some of that for the "Hubble 3D" film, but did not invest such time on this project. We did sculpt the front side of the clouds in the nebula into landscapes, but the camera path sta
      • This was an interesting experiment! I've enjoyed looking at Mars rover anaglyphs, and I think it makes sense to visualize interstellar phenomena in 3D as well. I'm a big fan of anaglyphs, because they are easy to transmit and reproduce, even if the color reproduction is poor.

        A problem I see with this clip is that there's much inconsistency as objects pass on to or off of the edges of the screen. When something passes off the edge, it disappears for 1 eye first, then the other eye. This is very distracti

  • Uhhhh... (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by dangitman (862676)

    Why are "you at the Hubble Space Telescope" wasting your time asking slashdot users what they want? Don't you have better things to do?

    • Someone has to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers--think of it as a long term investment in our future. And I think it's a good idea to ask science minded outsiders how they can do so more effectively.

      An uncle once gave me, as a birthday gift, a giant book with colorful full-page images of our solar system (captured by Voyager probes, etc.) It had quite an impact on me as a child.

      • by dangitman (862676)

        Someone has to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers--think of it as a long term investment in our future. And I think it's a good idea to ask science minded outsiders how they can do so more effectively.

        So, why would you choose slashdot, rather than some other place, with more intelligent and science-minded people? Slashdot seems to be mostly computing platform bigots and right-wing zealots these days.

  • by darien.train (1752510) on Thursday September 16, 2010 @10:53AM (#33599690) Journal

    If you design the experience properly you don't have to choose between an artistic and scientifically accurate rendering of the Hubble material. You can first show the artistic version and then add a scientific overlay with a basic set of data (what you're looking at, distance from earth, chemical makeup, etc). You can then transition into the wonky scientific version for a final pan across the subject matter so that you're representing the needs of multiple viewers. A decent 3D Info-graphics template can look really cool and add some production value without breaking your budget as well.

    If I someone at Hubble was actually interested I'd be willing to donate some time in making a storyboard that illustrates the concept.

    • I agree with Darien. It's important for every geek, but especially scientists living at the grace of the public, to remember that you have to tell some kind of story with what you know and learn.

      A great book on the subject is Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Tufte. The same principles, along with the addition of an intriguing story line would make far more interesting material for everyone.

      I hubbely recommend that you try taking Darien up on his offer and see what kind of story you can weave i

  • We would love to hear the Slashdot crowd feedback on whether you want more, are artistic interpretations of scientific data acceptable

    To be honest, I always have that "why? Isn't it impressive enough as it is?" when artistic interpretations are applied to astronomy. Whenever I'm shown amazing pictures of galaxies and gigantic colored gas clouds, and I go all "Whoa, so cool!", I die a little inside when I scroll down to the small text mentioning artistic interpretation.
    I suspect the known universe has plenty of beautiful sights as it is, and every time astronomy-sites feel the need to involve artistic interpretations, I'm left wondering i

  • If you are funded by the US government, then I would say no, don't waste any more of your time our our money on this. If you are privately funded, then sure, go ahead.
  • but somehow it failed miserably and I didn't see anything. I used these [bit.ly]. What am I doing wrong ?

    PS should I perhaps print them on glossy paper ?
    )
  • Give me good old side-by-side parallel viewing any way. Requires a bit of effort to focus the right way, but once you've got the trick it's pretty easy to even play games this way. I remember an old Quake1 patch for that. Made the game feel a lot more real and yet easier to play. The sense of depth helped a lot.

  • I have one of the new 3D TVs. Like Nvidia's real3D, my Samsung LED based LCD TV can view various 3d formats natively (off a USB drive, or streamed over a dlna device). Including "Side by Side" and "Top & Bottom". Other 3d formats can be viewed as outputted from a computer like interlaced (field sequential), Line by Line, Vertical Strip and Checkerboard. There isn't a lot of content available for these Televisions, so with the right marketing you'd get a lot of interest from owners.
    Joseph Elwell.

    • by rwllama (587787)
      We are interested in producing files that folks could watch directly on their 3D HDTV via USB, but have not figured out the encoding to use. In looking at the Samsung Media Play supported video formats, none of them jump out at me as being side-by-side, top-bottom, or other obviously 3D aspect ratios. They are all listed as 1920x1080 (with a couple 800x600). Hence, one could do a 1/2 width side-by-side or 1/2 height top-bottom, but not a full resolution or the Blu-ray 3D format of 1920x2205 at 24 fps. Have
      • by jelwell (2152)

        My Samsung TV can read every codec I've given it. You can grab the manual here:
        http://www.samsung.com/us/support/downloads/UN40C7000WFXZA [samsung.com]
        Page 40 lists the available codec support.
        Page 20 explains how the 3D feature works.

        Your confusion about which codec to use might be because the content you produce (just like anaglyph content) is a 2D video. A "Side by Side" video, as played in VLC, will just look like 2 2D images playing next to each other - because that's all it is. People use mkvmerge to take the left

        • by rwllama (587787)
          Thanks for the info, Joseph. You clarified the most important point - that the TV is switched into 3D mode separately from Media Play opening the file and starting it. We will have access to a 3D HDTV for testing shortly (it is also a Samsung, which is why I had looked into Media Play). When ready, I will be glad to post a version for you and others to download. I'll post the link as a comment to this thread and also see if the folks who do the YouTube channel will post it there. Thank you very much for you
  • When did the HST become a manned satellite?

  • Oh, come on, guys! That was just really poorly done. The whole idea of anaglyph is to try to make as much filtered out in each eye as possible. Obviously no one really looked at this or else they used something other than "normal" shades of red/cyan. Close the right eye and there is a ton of ghosting through the red filter.

    I'm a big proponent of 3D, but only when it's done right. This was actually painful to look at.
  • NASA should post the 3D stuff to Youtube with a 'yt3d' tag and let Youtube do all the work as far as 3D formatting. Anaglyph, SBS, Interleave and many others which will let you watch with pretty much any 3D displaying device, including modern 3DTV's
  • I need at least a three hour-long movie. Possibly days' worth. Go for it!
  • by emmons (94632)

    What are you using to produce this?

    • by rwllama (587787)
      The software used on this project is mainly Maya, Photoshop, ImageMagick, and perl scripts on both Linux and OS X.
      • by emmons (94632)

        Ah, ok. In the future if you're in need of an NLE that can do S3D natively, Sony Vegas 10 was just announced and has a full S3D workflow.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...