• k0e3@lemmy.caEnglish
      6·
      19 hours ago

      Wouldn’t the camera angle have to change horizontally instead of subject changing positions?

        • k0e3@lemmy.caEnglish
          2·
          16 hours ago

          Sorry, I actually don’t see it… At least not in a very significant way. The reason why we see 3d is because we have two cameras (eyes) side by side looking at objects from slightly different perspectives, right? I’m no expert, but one stationary camera with one dude moving in front of it shouldn’t cause a stereoscopic effect even if you take two frames of it (unless he’s rotating, maybe).

          It’s kinda like having an image of pacman with his mouth open and another with his mouth half way closed, crossing you eyes and saying you see him as a sphere. Edit: Or, they wouldn’t need special stereoscopic cameras for movies, they could just play two of the same videos one frame out of sync and call it a day. Maybe?

          If an expert can prove me wrong, I’ll shut my mouth.

          • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
            2·
            9 hours ago

            It’s surprisingly simple, if you have two cameras side by side, you’re capturing two images where the camera is moved horizontally relative to the subject. If you now instead take two pictures where you move the subject horizontally relative to the camera, you’re achieving the same effect on the subject in the images. This means you won’t get a correct effect on every video, and the background will be unaffected, but it can work.

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.mlEnglish
    101·
    1 day ago

    Me, just getting into computers and watching that ad in 1992:

    “Wait…I can just make copy unto my floppy disks?!?”

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    3·
    1 day ago

    The days of running a program on two 1541 drives’ own RAM so they could be daisy-chained together to be an assembly line of duplication.