Now this one you’d have to be alive in the early 80’s to even remember. Because I haven’t heard anything about it since then.
It was the early 1980s. And I was about 11 or 12, if you must know. And there was this human interest show on at primetime called Real People.
Anyways, this enterprising inventor was trying to showcase his new invention. Basically a method for showing three dimensional images on ordinary TV. Basically he had images in front, and the background would move from side to side, creating the illusion of three dimensions. I saw it. And it worked, it seemed. He just needed to refine it a little. But he thought he’d make millions off it.
He of course never did, because I never heard anything of it again.
Anyone else know what became of him? Or his invention? I’ve literally wondered all these years.
I don’t quite get your description of this technology. Is it like cel animation with foreground cels, midrange cels and background cels? Then it wouldn’t be 3D or an invention of the 80s, so I must be misunderstanding something.
@naita Example: there were cheerleaders in the front of the picture (cheering, of course). And the football field behind them was moving horizontally from side to side, while the cheerleaders stood still. This was the sample image they showed on Real People. That’s all I can tell you. It did seem to create the illusion of three dimensions.
The show broadcasted this in the early 1980s. And the guy claimed the idea was his and new.
Ah, I almost posted something from that era but then didn’t. You made me remember the Nimslo camera, which was also about 3D images.
I remember reading about them but I never saw a photo taken with one. If you remember those 3D baseball cards where the surface was plastic and had ridges, I think that’s what they were supposed to be like. Tilt the card a bit and a different image appears.
It wasn’t invented in the 1980s. It’s basically using multiple layers of images and a bit of parallax to simulate 3d.
As for his “invention”, I have seen it used on a lot of historical shows to bring a bit of life to old photographs, which makes them a bit more interesting visually. There are also apps for cell phones to make an animated 3d background using the same effect.
Probably not the same technique, as it uses two tone glasses to have moving objects appear to be at different depths, but it’s a technology that saw some small use in the 80s and 90s.
I thought I knew most of the 3D technologies out there, but that one is new to me. Neat. Try watching this video with some sunglasses covering just your right eye:
The effect is quite striking.
To the OP: are you sure the program didn’t require you use sunglasses or some other way of darkening the image from one eye?
The show actually has many/most of their episodes uploaded to YouTube:
I wasn’t able to find the 3D inventor guy. It does show some slightly… strange inventions:
It’s obviously not meant to show be a serious look at new technologies. My money is on the 3D effect being entirely in the imagination of the viewer, unless it really did require some extra equipment.
I tried a few other videos that claimed to demonstrate the effect, but none were close to as good as this one. They did a good job with getting the velocity right, and I think it helps that it was shot in HD resolution, as compared to some of the others that were blurry. It also helps that Scott, the background, and the occasional swipe of his arm are the only objects in the scene. That gives you a nice distinct three levels of depth.
Then I can say pretty confidently that it was not stereoscopic 3D. Maybe it used some optical illusion to give some sense of 3Dness, but stereoscopic 3D requires each eye to have a different view, which means there must be some way of distinguishing the eyes somehow.
Did it require any preparation first, such as staring at the screen with one eye closed? I suppose it might be possible to use color fatigue to get some kind of anaglyph 3D effect.
The TV alternately reproduces the left-eye and right-eye images, which are viewed through 3D Eyewear. To play back 3D images, simple insert an SD Memory Card in the slot of a Panasonic VIERA 3DTV or use a mini HDMI cable to connect the camera to a VIERA 3DTV.
You can get one for Canon to use for VR. Not cheap, but to be fair, they’re dual fisheyes.
Just an aside: There was a bit of a retro fad in the early ‘80s for 3D movies on local TV. You would get your glasses for a few cents at 7-11 so you could watch Creature From the Black Lagoon or some other old (usually B&W) movie in 3D on Elvira or some other local show on TV. If you didn’t have glasses they gave you instructions at the start on how to turn the color off on your TV.
I recall something being shown on local TV news around 1980. I didn’t get to see it but descriptions sort of match the Pultrich effect. There was some mention of the image sort o2f blinking, maybe with interleaved images. Nobody I talked to was very impressed but I’m afraid that working in 3D graphics at the time the people around me who saw it were being tech snobbish. I never heard another thing about it though.
I am surprised Integral imaging hasn’t been the focus of attention for the future of interactive 3D. The resolution requirements are quite high, the images have to be shot and viewed through a microlens array which also is a practical resolution limitation, but the display density and processing speed are definitely up to the task now.
Sorry, didn’t pick up a reference in the link to live-action film. Did I miss something?
Multiplane cameras have been used in animation for a long time but it was a labor intensive process that didn’t become practical until it could be done virtually. Disney insisted on using the multiplane for Snow White and other movies and it led to delays and cost overruns in production, but the eventual success of the films did justify it. It’s certainly possible to film separate parts of a scene at different distance ranges from the camera and re-integrate them with the effect, but that’s standard CGI work these days.
Live action films are already “multiplane”. Infinite planes in fact.
My WAG is that it did something similar though. If you look at a near object and wiggle your head, the object moves around relative to the foreground. Maybe if the different “planes” in a flat, moving image move in a similar fashion we perceive it the same way and get a 3D effect?
Anyone tried searching the patent library? Maybe this guy patented his invention? If not I call dibs!*
