It’s popular these days to see images the have a red and blue shift or ghosting. I realize a lot of it nowadays is done on purpose but is there an historic precedent like bad TV reception or something?
EXAMPLE - skip to around 0:50
I came in here expecting it to be copying the look of 3D films as they look when viewed normally. But the link doesn’t show that. The link shows what looks more like chromatic aberration. But that is something that occurs within a lens so it’s not what was going on with that “I Love Lucy” clip.
That is called chromatic aberration and I found out about it when I noticed a game I was playing on a new computer and monitor looked shit towards the edge of the screen. Imagine my relief when I discovered it was a graphics setting in the game.
Are you sure that isn’t an anaglyphic image?
OK, I just found an old pair of glasses, and yes, they are anaglyphs. I wonder where they found the two-camera images to make them?
Curious, I wonder if there’s an app that will create them. Prob wouldn’t be true 3D. Or maybe eBay has this old cameras?
Each colour image has to be slightly offset from the other so it doesn’t seem like something that could be done very successfully after the fact.
There are a lot of bad 3D images out there, where they basically take elements of the scene (such as a whole person) and treat them as cardboard cutouts. Most 3D movies, in fact, are done this way (certainly all of the 3D conversions of pre-existing 2D movies).
It often is done after the fact, especially in movies, but you’re right that it’s not very successful. They basically turn people or other objects into cardboard cutouts.
This used to be the standard way to draw 3D comics, back in the 1950s. It was sa pretty simply process to draw individual elements on “cels”, like an animated cartoon, and then use them to make different color masters for the color printing, shifting the elements relative to the background so that they formed different planes. The result, when viewed through the red and blue (or green) anaglyphic glasses was that the image looked like a series of cutouts placed at different distances.
http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/images-from-the-archive/comic-books
Some artists were dissatisfied with this, and drew 3D comics that didn’t use this shortcut method. Instead, they tried to draw both images “in perspective”, giving you a 3D image that really looked as if it had three dimensions, and not like a row of cardboard cutouts. Naturally, this took a lot more effort, and in the 1950s there were very few of these.
Here’s an example:
Nowadays, of course, you can computer generate “real 3D” comics with full perspective relatively easily. I’ve even seen cases where people took old 2D comics and “remastered” them as full 3D.It’s not very different from the process used to turn 2D movies into 3D movies, even when originally shot in 2D.
As for the red-and-blue separation, I think it’s just a style thing, possibly influenced by the appearance of those old anaglyphic comics when seen without 3D glasses. Like the Tik Tok logo
Yep, that’s at the heart of my question. I get that it’s more of a style thing now, I’ve seen it around a bit. I was wondering if it had some basis in past artifacts.
Thanks for the links.