It is currently Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:00 pm



Reply to topic  [ 481 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 13  Next
 [DIY] Auto-Stereo with Parallax Barriers 
Author Message
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:32 am
Posts: 27
Reply with quote
Nice tutorial... i will try to build this. I have a Notebook Acer 7720G with maximum resolution of 1920x1200 pixel and hope it will work. Too bad it has the downside of cutting the resolution ingame into half but it seems all 3d-solutions has a problem of some kind at the moment.

I have a laserprinter with 1200x600 dpi maximum but it can only print maximum A4 but I will try it first with it.
At ebay i found transparent film coming from a business wind-up and so I bought 200 sheets for 10,20Euro. Cheap I think.

I was wondering what transparent tape is clear enough to see through clearly. I tested one at a window and... no good result. So I asked and the tape to look for is Tesa or Scotch "Crystal clear"... this tape is not the normal transparent tape so I was told... so I bought a pack with the scotch version and will see how it goes with it...

At last I bought a steel rule. Normally used by craftsmans but I bought it to use it together with a cutter. I hope to get a clear cut with this setting because I dont have a A3-Printer.

Lets see what I can get with this... :)

I was wondering what kind of printer makes the sharpest edge. I thought it should be a laser printer but you wrote the laser wasnt very good... So that means dpi is everything? I thought the ink wouldnt make such a good edge because the ink wouldnt remain strictly at his place... what about plotter? Or other techniques if any?

If the result isnt very good I will look after canon pixma... they have printers that print up to 9600x2400dpi in black and white. And the ones that can handle A4 but no A3 are sold for 40Euros if they are used. So this would be my next move I think when the result isnt pleasing.

Is the image darker with a parallax barrier because of the black? If so... wouldnt it be possible to use a light color next to white? White itself wouldnt be possible I think. But the color would block the pixle the same way I think. And its often the case that printers can print higher resolutions in color than in black and white.

What Im wondering is how to find out the pixel pitch? I cant find it for my notebook...

How about the difference between the parallax barrier and the pixel? Its not taken into account in all formulas except the javasoftware. But it looks to me like an important point isnt it? I mean 1 mm more or less could mean that at the edge of the screen the pixel are seen completely different. So when not taking this into account and directly putting the film with the ink-side to the screen will it work perfectly or does it mean there is enough space between so that at the edge you will see different pixel even though you calculated the rest of the values correctly?


Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:24 pm
Profile
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
A laser printer at 1200dpi should work. You would think laser would be better than inkjet (maybe it is) but with my particular Samsung laser printer, the printouts were inconsistent. Meaning I would print the same pattern twice, and it would come out slightly different. It was very difficult to work with (although it was enough to get a proof-of-concept). Printing in color might work, I never tried it. That could be interesting. With a light gray it may make the image appear brighter. The parallax barrier line should be about the same size as 1 pixel (or the dot pitch). In practice, it may have to do slightly smaller due to the perspective caused by the glass on the screen. Turning the sheet to face the monitor can also help (and was what I did). But the pattern is always uniform. Once you get the right number, it will work for the whole screen (or a part of it, if you are printing multiple sheets).

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:34 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:32 am
Posts: 27
Reply with quote
Inconsistent? Maybe it was because the rollers that drive the paper were not working together correctly so the paper was driven more at one side? I hope i wont have such a problem...

I dont know if a light gray would be a good idea... because wouldnt that only mean that some dots arent printed to get some more white into it? If so I think it must be a real color so that blue, red and/or yellow is needed to build the color. And probably it cant be too light because that maybe would result in not printed dots too? But then the maximum that could be done would be to use yellow, red and blue together. Not at one point because that would mean to get black but near together. But I dont know what color that would give. Maybe even black too?


Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:11 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 11:39 am
Posts: 6
Reply with quote
SebastianJu wrote:
Nice tutorial... i will try to build this. I have a Notebook Acer 7720G with maximum resolution of 1920x1200 pixel and hope it will work. Too bad it has the downside of cutting the resolution ingame into half but it seems all 3d-solutions has a problem of some kind at the moment.

I have a laserprinter with 1200x600 dpi maximum but it can only print maximum A4 but I will try it first with it.
At ebay i found transparent film coming from a business wind-up and so I bought 200 sheets for 10,20Euro. Cheap I think.

I was wondering what transparent tape is clear enough to see through clearly. I tested one at a window and... no good result. So I asked and the tape to look for is Tesa or Scotch "Crystal clear"... this tape is not the normal transparent tape so I was told... so I bought a pack with the scotch version and will see how it goes with it...

At last I bought a steel rule. Normally used by craftsmans but I bought it to use it together with a cutter. I hope to get a clear cut with this setting because I dont have a A3-Printer.

Lets see what I can get with this... :)

I was wondering what kind of printer makes the sharpest edge. I thought it should be a laser printer but you wrote the laser wasnt very good... So that means dpi is everything? I thought the ink wouldnt make such a good edge because the ink wouldnt remain strictly at his place... what about plotter? Or other techniques if any?

If the result isnt very good I will look after canon pixma... they have printers that print up to 9600x2400dpi in black and white. And the ones that can handle A4 but no A3 are sold for 40Euros if they are used. So this would be my next move I think when the result isnt pleasing.

Is the image darker with a parallax barrier because of the black? If so... wouldnt it be possible to use a light color next to white? White itself wouldnt be possible I think. But the color would block the pixle the same way I think. And its often the case that printers can print higher resolutions in color than in black and white.

What Im wondering is how to find out the pixel pitch? I cant find it for my notebook...

How about the difference between the parallax barrier and the pixel? Its not taken into account in all formulas except the javasoftware. But it looks to me like an important point isnt it? I mean 1 mm more or less could mean that at the edge of the screen the pixel are seen completely different. So when not taking this into account and directly putting the film with the ink-side to the screen will it work perfectly or does it mean there is enough space between so that at the edge you will see different pixel even though you calculated the rest of the values correctly?



I agree with you SebastianJu, it was a nice tutorial. I do print my stuff with a LaserJet though. I think that it prints great quality images. Just make sure that you have it set to 1200dpi. I'm pretty sure that this is what magazine printing companies use when printing too.

_________________
I love my LCD HDTV!


Last edited by ZeldaMan35 on Sun May 29, 2011 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.



Sun May 22, 2011 11:49 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Sweden
Reply with quote
white won't work, since you can't actually print white. any color other than black will give a poor result.

The barrier width is crucial. get it wrong and it simply won't work except for a narrow column somewhere on the screen. The air gap between the screen and the barrier is equally important, but that's not a factor when printing the image, so if you have the right barrier you can just trial and error the correct distance.

_________________
Image
"This is great!"


Mon May 23, 2011 1:41 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 12:42 pm
Posts: 2
Reply with quote
Hi all.. it's very nice this work and i tried but i have a problem to get the correct pixel pitch of zalman zm-m240w.... the 22'' is 0.282 but this is the 24'' version and in many site the value start from 0.270 to 0.285... i tried 272, 276, 282 without fortune... anyone have tryed? It's possible to calcolate the pixel pitch? (this also in case of make a test for my notebook asus where the pixel pitch of the monitor isn't simple to find)... thanks thousand


Tue May 31, 2011 3:42 pm
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
Reply with quote
Yes you can calculate the pixel pitch by simply measuring the width of your display. The formula is then :
dot pitch in mm = width in mm / horizontal resolution.

For the 22" (16:10) the width in mm is 22 * 2.54 * 10 * 16 / sqrt(356) = 473.86 mm, this gives a pixel pitch of 473.86 / 1680 = 0.2820 mm.

For the 24" (16:9) the width is 24 * 2.54 * 10 * 16 / sqrt(337) = 531.31 mm, which gives a pixel pitch of 531.31 / 1920 = 0.2767 mm. If they didn't lie about the real diagonal size (which happens sometimes with some manufacturers), then you could probably test 0.277 which is closer to the real value. If this doesn't work, then the problem with your barrier should probably lie elsewhere.

If you do measure the actual width you will find out if 531.31 mm is the correct value, an error of 1 mm in the measure won't have much impact on the final result (0.005 mm in this case).

EDIT : corrected, calculations went badly the first time :/.


Last edited by Fredz on Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:47 pm
Profile WWW
Cross Eyed!

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Sweden
Reply with quote
in this case, 1mm is NOT an acceptable error. 1mm is the width of almost four pixels. There is literally no margin for error with this :)

_________________
Image
"This is great!"


Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:25 pm
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
Reply with quote
The 1 mm error is divided by 1920 in the end, so as I said it gives an error of max 0.005 mm for the dot pitch calculation.


Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:23 pm
Profile WWW
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
The dot pitch is only needed to get in the ballpark. You still end up needing to do trial and error at some point, because there are a lot of variables at play. So even without the dot pitch, you should be able to make a decent estimate just by measuring the screen and using some simple math.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:39 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:44 pm
Posts: 1
Reply with quote
I hope someone can help me to make a barrier film for my 17inch monitor (sync master 732) to use as autostereoscopic display.I wish to get how can i make the transperent film for this and how can I prepare image for the same.


Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:19 am
Profile
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
Did you see my tutorial:
viewtopic.php?p=55961#p55961

I include a test image you could use, but it also works with the iz3D driver.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:43 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 12:42 pm
Posts: 2
Reply with quote
Fredz wrote:
Yes you can calculate the pixel pitch by simply measuring the width of your display. The formula is then :
dot pitch in mm = width in mm / horizontal resolution.

For the 22" (16:10) the width in mm is 22 * 2.54 * 10 * 16 / sqrt(356) = 473.86 mm, this gives a pixel pitch of 473.86 / 1680 = 0.2820 mm.

For the 24" (16:9) the width is 24 * 2.54 * 10 * 16 / sqrt(337) = 531.31 mm, which gives a pixel pitch of 531.31 / 1920 = 0.2767 mm. If they didn't lie about the real diagonal size (which happens sometimes with some manufacturers), then you could probably test 0.277 which is closer to the real value. If this doesn't work, then the problem with your barrier should probably lie elsewhere.

If you do measure the actual width you will find out if 531.31 mm is the correct value, an error of 1 mm in the measure won't have much impact on the final result (0.005 mm in this case).

EDIT : corrected, calculations went badly the first time :/.


Tnx for the answer :) ... 276 ... i tryed but probably i have to set 0.2767 then.. ok...
I'm waiting the new trasparent film for try... (When i have time ........... uff)


Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:56 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Sweden
Reply with quote
Fredz wrote:
The 1 mm error is divided by 1920 in the end, so as I said it gives an error of max 0.005 mm for the dot pitch calculation.

no really, if your measurements are 1mm off, you won't get a usable barrier. that one millimeter is almost four pixels, so if you position the barrier correctly on one edge of the screen, the other side WILL be off by four pixels.

sure, the 1 millimeter error is divided by 1920(so it's actually 0,0005mm), but since you're printing at least 1921 lines, that half micrometer is still a millimeter in the end.

so, if you want to calculate your dot pitch for any reason other than this, half a micrometer is probably considered acceptable ;-) but for this, you want it as accurate as possible.

_________________
Image
"This is great!"


Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:30 pm
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
Reply with quote
Thanks for the correction, as you said it's actually a 0.0005 mm error margin for the dot pitch (1 / 1920 = 0.00052) and not 0.005 mm as I said. Stupid me... :?

It's in fact even better than what I tought because a 2400 dpi printer has a dot pitch of 25.4 mm / 2400 = 0.01058 mm, which is a lot less precise than this error margin. And the given dot pitch of monitors is generally rounded to max 3 decimals (which is the case for the Zalman ones), which gives a 0.001 mm error margin. Still a lot worse than what you would obtain by measuring the width of the display yourself with a 1 mm error margin.

So in only two tries - by selecting your lower and higher bound for the measure of the width of the display - you should theoretically be able to print the most perfect possible parallax barrier printable with any printer.

But as cybereality said the dot pitch will only get you started with a first approximation, because in the end the precision of your printer won't be good enough whatever its dpi is. So you'll probably have to use uneven values for the tickness of both transparent and black bars, it's probably the reason why using 600 dpi printers can give acceptable results when printing at a 2400 dpi resolution.

And you should also account for the fact that the thickness of your bars shouldn't be exactly equal to the dot pitch. For the effect to work the parallax barrier is not placed exactly on the surface of the pixels, but some millimeters away from them. You don't have the choice anyway because of the thickness of the different strates between the pixels and the surface of the display.

As illustrated in this schema, you can see that a parallax barrier with bars of the same thickness than the pixel pitch won't work, even if this illustration is not at the correct scale :

Image

Unfortunately I don't think there is any mean to know or measure the thickness of the surface of a display. And even when knowing this thickness, the fact that it's made of glass and other materials has an incidence in the way the light travels it. So you'd also need to know it's refractive index, and then use the Snell law to make the calculations for your parallax barrier.

In the end it will be much more simple to do some trial and error, starting with an acceptable approximation and going down till it's correct. Be prepared to consume some transparent paper... :P


Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:45 pm
Profile WWW
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
Fredz wrote:
In the end it will be much more simple to do some trial and error, starting with an acceptable approximation and going down till it's correct. Be prepared to consume some transparent paper... :P

What I found to be helpful (and also save paper and ink) was to print 5 or 6 patterns on one sheet, each about 2 inches high and 8 inches wide. This way I could test a few different options without wasting a whole sheet (and more importantly all that ink). You don't have to print all 5 patterns at once. You can just print the top one, and then the others in order as you adjust via trial and error.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:25 pm
Profile
Cross Eyed!

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Sweden
Reply with quote
Fredz wrote:
Thanks for the correction, as you said it's actually a 0.0005 mm error margin for the dot pitch (1 / 1920 = 0.00052) and not 0.005 mm as I said. Stupid me... :?

It's in fact even better than what I tought because a 2400 dpi printer has a dot pitch of 25.4 mm / 2400 = 0.01058 mm, which is a lot less precise than this error margin. And the given dot pitch of monitors is generally rounded to max 3 decimals (which is the case for the Zalman ones), which gives a 0.001 mm error margin. Still a lot worse than what you would obtain by measuring the width of the display yourself with a 1 mm error margin.


You're missing something. The exact width of each individual barrier isn't that important. It's just the average distance between them that has to be very accurate.

In effect, you'd have to divide the printer error margin by 1920 to make your comparison valid.

I do agree though, dot pitch is a bad way to do this because it needs to be so very accurate. I know you can find dimensions of the actual active display area for some displays, down to 0.1mm. If at all possible, you should use that rather than dot pitch.

_________________
Image
"This is great!"


Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:53 am
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
Reply with quote
AntiCatalyst wrote:
You're missing something. The exact width of each individual barrier isn't that important. It's just the average distance between them that has to be very accurate.
That's what I said in my previous message when I talked about the resolution of a 2400 dpi printer that was too limited for the task, hence the need of uneven thickness for the parallax barrier.

AntiCatalyst wrote:
In effect, you'd have to divide the printer error margin by 1920 to make your comparison valid.
There is no reason to compare the error margin of the dot pitch with the error margin of the printer dpi. If the dot pitch error margin is inferior to the printer precision then the weak link is the printer, and the dot pitch estimation has enough precision.

AntiCatalyst wrote:
I do agree though, dot pitch is a bad way to do this because it needs to be so very accurate. I know you can find dimensions of the actual active display area for some displays, down to 0.1mm. If at all possible, you should use that rather than dot pitch.
As I've explained the dot pitch estimation doesn't have to be that precise since it's not this exact value that will be used for the parallax barrier, it's only a starting point. And as I also said, this starting point will be more precise than the official dot pitch you'll get from manufacturers if you can measure the screen width up to 1mm error. I didn't know manufacturers gave display widths at a 0.1mm precision, if you can find that all the better.


Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:55 am
Profile WWW
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:10 am
Posts: 33
Location: Computer
Reply with quote
cybereality wrote:
Well 23" would be the ideal size since we could use standard Super B transparencies. With 23" we can fill the full vertical space and only have about 0.5" of margin on the left or right. This is pretty minor and probably not noticeable while playing a game. If we go to 24" then there would be almost an inch margin on the sides (about 0.95"). I could get a roll of transparency, which would mean the full screen could be filled but this adds some cost to the project. But it certainly could be done. I did a quick search and the Acer G235hAbd seems like a nice candidate. It sells for around $140, its a 23" 1080P display with good reviews (however it could have better distribution):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824009266

The key aspect of this is the economics. If you have to spend $300-400 it doesn't make sense because for that price you can get a real 120Hz 3D monitor.


cybereality wrote:
wuhlei wrote:
I'd rather just buy the sheets. Is any one selling them?

I would sell them myself, except every monitor is slightly different. I would need a template for each specific model. I was thinking maybe we could all choose a good cheap 1080P display and use that as a base model. So I would buy that screen and perfect the pattern on it, then I could send people the working pattern. Obvious you need to buy the monitor yourself. The monitors I was looking at would be around 23" 1080P and cost around $150.


I was happy, because I thought I had that exact monitor, then I was sad because I realized I had the 215 one, then I was meh because there wasn't something purchaseable premade yet anyway, and then I went to check my printers DPIs and I have two 1200x1200s and one 2400x1200 and was happy because I thought I might be able to do this, and then I was sad again because none of them could handle a sheet big enough to do it in one solid piece and I don't have ink anyway. x3

Still, keeping an eye on this. o3o


Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:47 am
Profile YIM WWW
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 3:51 pm
Posts: 1
Reply with quote
I just stumbled upon this thread and I am looking to get some help. First off my printer is a Canon Pixma MP210, and it says that it will do 1200 dpi. My monitor is a 22" with a 0.248 pixel pitch that brought me to a ppb of ~11.71. I have printed about 15 interpolated tests and none come closer to real results than a 12 opaque pixels and 11 transparent pixels template that I made, which still seems to do nothing when I look at the test image provided(opening with gimp at setting the view to 100%). Using that barrier I can move it slightly and see the image swap happening, so I know its on the right track. Nothing else seems to even almost show any 3d effect. Any help would be greatly appreciated. My monitor is a LG W2240T, and thanks in advance.


Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:53 pm
Profile
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
If you use the color charts as a reference, you should be able to tell if the pattern is too big or too small. That will at least help you see which way to go.

Attachment:
Sub-pixel-Ghosting-Guide.jpg


That printer says its 1200dpi, which should be enough. Its probably just a matter of finding the correct pattern. I had a lot of trouble with this myself, and mostly it was a trial and error procedure (over like 2 years). Make sure to also try changing your distance from the monitor (move forward or back) and try flipping the sheet around (so the printed side faces the monitor or vice versa). I am going to try to see if I can find an easier method. Some people here have posted some formulas and programs that might help you find a better pattern (just check the last 4 or 5 pages of this thread). You might want to try some of the stuff they suggest.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:19 pm
Profile
Cross Eyed!

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Sweden
Reply with quote
i just had an opportunity to try this out on my netbook, and i got a working pattern in just 3 prints(thanks cyber, those color charts really helped :) )! I really need some kind of spacer behind it though, because i have to get it 2-3 mm up off the LCD surface, and it's just a pain trying to get it flat by taping it to the bezel. I guess cyber's monitor is better for this, since he can just put it straight onto the display surface, and the internal distance to the actual LCD panel just magically makes it work.

I'm getting terrible ghosting right now btw, but that's mostly because my ink cartridge is running on fumes. The first few prints were better, but back then it just said "Ink Low". Now it says "Cartridge Empty" and has to be sweet-talked into printing a page. Still works though :mrgreen:

_________________
Image
"This is great!"


Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:51 pm
Profile
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
Awesome man! Maybe I have been lucky with the Zalman. I have not tried it with any other monitor yet. You can try inserting a blank transparency sheet in between the barrier and the monitor, but you will lose some quality.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:57 pm
Profile
Cross Eyed!

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Sweden
Reply with quote
Well, considering I'd need at least 10 sheets, a solid spacer is more realistic if i want to see just about anything through it. :-) right now the bezel gives me the perfect viewing distance, so I'll probably try a 3mm thick piece of acrylic or something.

_________________
Image
"This is great!"


Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:33 am
Profile
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
I was looking into building a more permanent fixture for the sheet, and acrylic seemed like the way to go. Its pretty affordable.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:31 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Sweden
Reply with quote
cybereality wrote:
28" could work. The biggest standard size available of transparency film is 13" x 19" (which I have, but haven't had time to test yet). This would fit a 24" 16:9 monitor with less than an inch margin on the left and right sides. Bigger than that you would need to get a roll of transparency, which you can do but its a little more expensive. I did the math and a 27" 16:9 monitor would be possible with just a small 1/10 inch margin on the top and bottom. So 28" could work as well, you would just have a slight margin on the top/bottom, but I don't think this will be too noticeable.

Where i'm working now, we have printers that take 36" rolls.. Perfect for a 72" 16/9 screen! :D

_________________
Image
"This is great!"


Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:28 am
Profile
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
AntiCatalyst wrote:
Where i'm working now, we have printers that take 36" rolls.. Perfect for a 72" 16/9 screen! :D

Nice!

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:41 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:19 am
Posts: 14
Reply with quote
Hi , is this possible to buy a "Parallax Barriers"


Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:41 am
Profile
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
Marcer wrote:
Hi , is this possible to buy a "Parallax Barriers"

At the moment, no. But I am looking into options for turning this into a product.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:16 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:55 pm
Posts: 1
Reply with quote
Thanks for this exelent information


Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:32 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:10 am
Posts: 33
Location: Computer
Reply with quote
Cotelio wrote:
cybereality wrote:
Well 23" would be the ideal size since we could use standard Super B transparencies. With 23" we can fill the full vertical space and only have about 0.5" of margin on the left or right. This is pretty minor and probably not noticeable while playing a game. If we go to 24" then there would be almost an inch margin on the sides (about 0.95"). I could get a roll of transparency, which would mean the full screen could be filled but this adds some cost to the project. But it certainly could be done. I did a quick search and the Acer G235hAbd seems like a nice candidate. It sells for around $140, its a 23" 1080P display with good reviews (however it could have better distribution):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824009266

The key aspect of this is the economics. If you have to spend $300-400 it doesn't make sense because for that price you can get a real 120Hz 3D monitor.


cybereality wrote:
wuhlei wrote:
I'd rather just buy the sheets. Is any one selling them?

I would sell them myself, except every monitor is slightly different. I would need a template for each specific model. I was thinking maybe we could all choose a good cheap 1080P display and use that as a base model. So I would buy that screen and perfect the pattern on it, then I could send people the working pattern. Obvious you need to buy the monitor yourself. The monitors I was looking at would be around 23" 1080P and cost around $150.


I was happy, because I thought I had that exact monitor, then I was sad because I realized I had the 215 one, then I was meh because there wasn't something purchasable premade yet anyway, and then I went to check my printers DPIs and I have two 1200x1200s and one 2400x1200 and was happy because I thought I might be able to do this, and then I was sad again because none of them could handle a sheet big enough to do it in one solid piece and I don't have ink anyway. x3

Still, keeping an eye on this. o3o


Actually, I _will_ try this, once I have my computer back. I'll also try and get my hands on a couple different kinds of Anaglyph glasses, and hopefully purchase the full iZ3D driver. x3

Wow, is my printer's DPI really as high as I said there? It's a HP Deskjet D1560.
It is, nice. http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/Te ... =c01371151
48k x 12k optimized? I don't trust that, sounds like scaling. It would be using black anyway, and black only says 12kx12k.

I figured I would call up Staples and see what their printer's specs are, because I know they do prints for people.

Let's see... so I would try a couple different patterns on one page, then tweak ( if needed ) the one that worked best and make a full page of that, right? Couldn't I cut it down to 2(extremely lucky) to 5 or so prints by making pages with a range of patterns, then make another range page of just between the two closest ones, kinda like calculating a square root by hand?

I hope Staples's printer is high enough DPI and can handle.. was it Super B? sheets, to cover my whole monitor with one sheet. Issa 21 inch, if you didn't get that from the part number.

I don't know anywhere else around here that does prints, though. One of my parents might have access to such a printer at their jobs, I guess. It'd be hell getting them to do it right, though, or even getting the right information about the printer. "What's the printer's model number? Uhm... tch tch tch... Lexmark."

Also, just to clarify. If you need to add or subtract a pixel every so many rows, you add or subtract to a black bar, and all the clear spaces are the same? Or is in the opposite? Or is it one for adding, and the other for subtracting, and if so which way is it? n_n;;;

Edit: Or, Cybereality, maybehaps I pay you, you mail me a sheet with a bunch of rows of the patterns in the ballpark range for my monitor, I tell you which one, and you send another of just that pattern, or another range sheet of just ones a lot closer to it for further tweaking? Just looking at sheet sizes, I would think it would be feasibly to fit 10 or 15 testably-sized rows on a sheet; theoretically every sheet of a range of patterns brings you a power of ten (or however many rows there are) closer, right?

Also, that's kind of one way that you could sell these without having premade customs for every monitor. It does require at least two sheets to be mailed per person though. Still, it sounds like $10-$30 ought to cover your material costs and then some and that plus the $40 of the unlocked iZ3D driver seems, to me, like a nice balance between anaglyph and the "professional" solutions.

You could get buy with charging more for having to mail more range sets, especially multiple "final" sheets, though I think you could probably save money and fit the range transparencys in a standard envelope by cutting them up, since only a relatively small chunk needs to be tested at a time to find the right one anyway, right?

Heck, I could see people being willing to pay you just for the first one or two personalized "ballpark range" sheets for their monitor and printer, to get them nice and close to where they need to be for the final pattern. I would. I'm lazy. x3

Still, even only counting the final materials, you should probably edit the title of that video if you can. $5 is misleading, expecially since the unlocked driver isn't free, even if a trial of it is. ;p


Or are my ideas off of reading the thread totally wrong and useless? x3


Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:52 am
Profile YIM WWW
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
Yeah, you are on the right track. I actually did something similar, basically printing out 5 or 6 patterns on a sheet at once. This did save ink and paper, but still very time consuming. I don't think it would make sense to try to trouble-shoot this through the mail. I'm sure people would pay for the supplies, but the project was just very time-consuming. I'd like to pick it back up again, and come up with a better solution, but I have been very busy. But the idea is out there, and I've proven it works. Its just maybe not as easy as I initially made it out to be.

And the $5 thing is true. The final sheet I used in the video only cost a few dollars. I did not factor in the cost of the 3d driver, or the printer, or the ink, or the computer I worked on, or a license for photoshop, or my electricity bill, my rent, etc. But maybe it was a bit misleading.

Anyway, I do have plans to make more of this in the future, maybe sell pre-made sheets. Stay tuned.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:13 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:10 am
Posts: 33
Location: Computer
Reply with quote
cybereality wrote:
Yeah, you are on the right track. I actually did something similar, basically printing out 5 or 6 patterns on a sheet at once. This did save ink and paper, but still very time consuming. I don't think it would make sense to try to trouble-shoot this through the mail. I'm sure people would pay for the supplies, but the project was just very time-consuming. I'd like to pick it back up again, and come up with a better solution, but I have been very busy. But the idea is out there, and I've proven it works. Its just maybe not as easy as I initially made it out to be.

And the $5 thing is true. The final sheet I used in the video only cost a few dollars. I did not factor in the cost of the 3d driver, or the printer, or the ink, or the computer I worked on, or a license for photoshop, or my electricity bill, my rent, etc. But maybe it was a bit misleading.

Anyway, I do have plans to make more of this in the future, maybe sell pre-made sheets. Stay tuned.


Yeah, I will.
I can't wait to get my PC back so I can start trying stuff out. It's gonna be longer than I thought though, they don't even have the thermal paste that was the reason I brought it in, so it's gonna be ordered. x.x

I'm really looking forward to trying all this different stuff. whet my pallet with as many of the different methods as possible, you know? Anaglyph is nice, but it just seems like... I I like chocolate ice cream, but plenty of times I would want to try something else instead of sticking with the same.


Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:12 pm
Profile YIM WWW
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
I honestly use anaglyph sometimes just for kicks, and its really not as bad as most people think it is.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:33 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:10 am
Posts: 33
Location: Computer
Reply with quote
I can get one of these for $15, but I dunno if I should trust it. The only DPI setting I see is 5760 x 1440... optimized. Nothing else, just an "optimized" DPI. If that's legit though, it would be a lot better for printing a barrier. Expecially if I could find one or two of the so-called "panoramic" size transparencies...

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/cons ... y=Products

Edit: Ohay, the one Cyber was using is an Epson. Not the same one by far, but still. Guess I should get it. Then again, the black ink will cost as much as the secondhard printer itself... decisions, decisions.

Nah, won't get it. I'll get by with my 1200 dpi printer once the transparencies I ordered come in. Have other things that want for that money. Sorry for the pointless post.


Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:37 pm
Profile YIM WWW
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
1200dpi should be enough. I used an Epson with the 1440 resolution, which helped, but I bought it mostly because it could print the big sizes.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:41 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:10 am
Posts: 33
Location: Computer
Reply with quote
Whoo! My transparencies came in.

Printer's too loud to do stuff right now though. Soon, though.... :{>


Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:35 pm
Profile YIM WWW
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:08 am
Posts: 2
Reply with quote
Please use imagesetters/platesetters (CTF/CTP) to get it perfect :geek:


Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:53 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:39 pm
Posts: 9
Reply with quote
Hello everyone !
This is my 1st post on the forum as I found some days ago. I just did a search on "parallax barrier" after the fact I've read about a new filter being commercialized by some company in order to get 3d on a simple LCD screen. I couldn't believe a simple sheet could make 3D but I wasn't aware of this parallax thing ... now it's obvious !

I'd like to thanks everyone who were active on this thread. Especialy cybereality, I read every post you made (in fact I read all the thread), and it's obvious you're a generous person, I admire that and thanks to your persistence over the past 2 years, I've been able to get 3D on my screen in just 2 days !

I got a lot of questions in my mind :
I just bought a new printer (the old one was ... old), that's a HP 1050A, it's credited as being a 1200x4800 DPI, but after some research I read this resolution only goes for color mode, but the B&W mode only does 600x600 DPI ... question is, am I limited to the 600 DPI in this project or is it possible to print in black by using the colors and the higher resolution ?

As I said, the 3D effect works, and I think it's as good as it should be, the depht looks really nice. The problem is that there is so much ghosting. Also, the barrier grid is too much visible. Take a look at the picture I've taken. The barrier doesn't look equaly put in place. Also I don't know how the test pattern should look through a perfect barrier ... totaly white ? How does mine look ?

Image


Thanks for the help !


Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Profile
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
@luthor70: Hey man, welcome to the forum!

Thats a pretty good attempt for only 2 days. It should be enough to at least see the 3D effect, but it is not perfect. Ideally it would be much more uniform and as close to white as possible (in practice you will always have a orange/blue tint). Most likely its the printer. I know on my old printer that was about as good as it got, and then with the new one it was much cleaner and uniform (using the same pattern). Hopefully that new printer you got will help.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:51 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 481 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 13  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.