Hubble In Anaglyph Stereo 3D 114
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?"
First new word I leaned today (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Looks like you've Slashdotted a Wikipedia page. Bravo! Either that or they're now being hosted on Real's servers.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, you didn't miss much. Just an attempt at a 3d pan and zoom image. The clip was 29 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was Analglyph at first and figured "goatse" followed High Fructose Corn Syrup in the search for a new name.
Re:First new word I leaned today (Score:4, Funny)
I thought it was Analglyph at first
Would that be a tatoo on your arse designed to be viewed with 3d glasses?
It could open up some interesting lines: "Hey babe, if you like 3d movies I've got something to show you!" or "now your here would you like to come upstairs and take a look at my anaglyph?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We words will not be intimidated, no much how much we are leaned on.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Youtube it please (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Youtube it please (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the moon was the same size as the sun (see solar eclipses)
Re: (Score:2)
But Avatar isn't purporting to be a real object.
Re: (Score:2)
The 3D in Avatar was a computer-processed generation as well.
Not the way he described it, no.
Check by your definition, all 3D images coming off a 2D screen would be classified as fake these days.
You didn't understand his point, which is kinda sad because the reference he made to 'colorization' is pretty close. That's why it fails the 'Check 2' point you mentioned. They didn't work with real depth like Avatar did, they had to work it out after the fact.
Color Blind (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
so increase the distance between them?
use our experience with the mars rovers and protocols like NTP to coordinate them?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like STEREO?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/main/index.html [nasa.gov]
Except that perhaps you'd want them much, much, much, etc., further apart if you want to directly resolve parallax in objects at interstellar distances.
Re: (Score:1)
don't tell me, tell the GP.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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'
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Fortunately I live in a land of blind people.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They don't work very well for anyone, colorblind or not.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But cyan has green and blue as components, so your 3D effect would be somewhat ruined if you were red/cgreen colorblind.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Time for a nice quiet Slashdot effect ;-) (Score:1)
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)
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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!
Re: (Score:1)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
(subject) There's no 3D in space!
Yes, the sky is just a huge curved screen with plenty of white pixels.
I am color blind. Can I see the stereo 3-D movies (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how [...]
Then you're probably colorblind.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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 ...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Really? (Score:2)
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
Small parallax problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Small parallax problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
One does not need any hardware for side-by-side (except probably a Hallmark card for parallel side-by-side)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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!
Parallel view 3D please! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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].
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
If this were posted to photo.net... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Not annoying at all (Score:1)
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)
Suggestion for improvement (Score:2)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
To Answer The Actual Question... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Artistic interpretation (Score:1)
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
And you are funded by whom? (Score:1)
I tried my own glasses... (Score:1)
PS should I perhaps print them on glossy paper ?
)
Anaglyph... bleh (Score:2)
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.
3D TV content (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
We at the Hubble Space Telescope... (Score:1)
When did the HST become a manned satellite?
PAINFUL -- too much bleed through the red filter (Score:2)
I'm a big proponent of 3D, but only when it's done right. This was actually painful to look at.
Throw it up on Youtube (Score:1)
Wonderful! Great! More!! (Score:2)
Editor (Score:2)
What are you using to produce this?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't tell me that I'm the only one who has anaglyph glasses within arm's reach of the computer.
My anaglyph glasses are ALWAYS within arms reach when i am at my computer. Funnily enough I'm not even one of those people who get to use them to analyze molecules either, just a rabid survivor of the 80's 3D phenomenon.