dBFS
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
The only " true stereo" television I ever saw was in a radiation
lab, where they handled radioactive materials remotely with robot
arms and hands, and needed the stereo so they could judge distance
and not drop stuff. They had two cameras 2-1/2 inches apart, and two
seperte channels....One for each eye. The picture you got was just
like being there, and when you put your hand in the glove and
reached out to pick up something, the robot arm reached out just
like you did. All this red and green glasses stuff they were showing
the kids in the movies was a joke compared to that.
If you have never seen real polarized stereo films, you need to watch
one.
It is a very different experience.
When all those 1950s 3-D films were originally screened on their
first run, they were shown in polarized formats. This required
either two linked projectors with a bicycle chain keeping them in
synch and polarizers on
the lenses, or a single-strip system where a mirror box would be
placed
in front of the screen the direct the top and bottom halves of the
frame (each one image) through different polarizers and onto the
screen. It also required a silver screen that would reflect the
image properly polarized.
Because this arrangement was not possible at smaller theatres, when
those films went on their second run out into the hinterlands they
were often shown in anaglyph red-green or red-blue format. The
anaglyph systems looked terrible and nobody at the studios ever took
them as anything other than
a poor stepchild of regular polarized-image 3-D.
You will occasionally still see those old films shown in proper
polarized 3-D now and then. I work at a science fiction convention
up in Boston where a couple years ago we ran It Came From Outer Space
in proper 3-D. It was
a very different thing than the anaglyph and folks in the audience
were amazed by it.
--scott
Yes. True stereo is a wonderful thing. For years, I took photos with a
Stereo Realist camera. It took two color slides at the same time through two
lenses that were 2-1/2 inches apart, and the photo lab would mount them both
on the same cardboard frame so you could view them together in a stereo
viewer. the realism was astounding, but of course, they were stills, and not
motion pictures. I understand that building the same thing into a movie
camera would be very expensive, and it would be virtually impossible to show
it to an audience in a movie theater. Today, however, television makes such
a thing a lot more plausable. You could build a stereo viewer that you could
peer into in your living room, and with two seperate TV channels, (one for
each eye) you could produce and transmit stereo video programs to the
viewing public. I really don't know why somebody hasn't done this.
|