So THAT'S where I went wrong! I purchased glasses for u-tubing instead of youtube viewing!! Aah, now I see, said the blind trek-fu master.
Nah, just kidding, that's just my clumsy shorthand.
VRML TOS Enterprise
- Thread starter BrookeStephen
- Start date
So THAT'S where I went wrong! I purchased glasses for u-tubing instead of youtube viewing!! Aah, now I see, said the blind trek-fu master.
Nah, just kidding, that's just my clumsy shorthand.
Well I already have the red/blue glasses that were given away for the Superbowl and the 3D episode of Chuck.
I checked out a few of your images before posting my question and it seemed like the overlaps of the reds and blues were too far apart so that the images didn't quite line up. Could just be my glasses though.
Wonderful news.
Well, Bitmanagement makes the software.
Can you take a look at my 3D videos on YouTube?
Just got my 3D glasses, no go, so I guess that's it for the cyan shades? Unless it's my monitor or somethin? I'm not giving up yet though, I'll keep trying till I figure it out, or just buy a different pair of goggles from google!
Well, it says red/blue on the Bitmanagement Contact menu, so that's my story and I'm stickin to it!
I'll investigate if there's another choice - like a plug-in or something.
Ummmm... I've re-read this passage... several times...
wondering whether TheSeeker knows that this is actually how
3d pictures work... but that's just silly on my part!
Isn't it?
I'm goin out on a limb here:
the red and blue actually represent two completely separate pictures...
one is completely red-tinted, the other completely blue-tinted (for lack of a more technically accurate and long-winded description).
The two images are placed inside the same picture file, side by side.
You wear the glasses so that your left eye sees ONLY one of the pictures, while your right eye sees ONLY the other picture.
Since your eyes are connected thru your brain, which tirelessly never ceases to try to make sense of what the eyes report, you will focus on objects, that appear in both red and blue pics, as if they were real 3d objects, based on the distance between their position in the red picture and their position in the blue picture. Your brain will consider those objects with the most separation distance as the closest to you and focus accordingly.
If you, TheSeeker, feel that the objects don't line up, then you're either not wearing 3d glasses, not wearing the appropriate 3d glasses, or you're not focussing your eyes based on the images that are trying to trick your brain.
I pray it's not the last one, because then you might find your signature quote refers to you! LOL
Please forgive me - my own tireless inner-know-it-all made me write all this!
The 3D effect worked for me, and I just wore a pair of cheapie, red-and-blue 3D glasses.
The effect falls apart somewhat when red or blue details, like the bridge railings, are shown. The Falcon 3D footage doesn't work nearly as well as Enterprise. I suspect it's because the Falcon doesn't have a lot of edges which would make a 3D effect more obvious.
The effect falls apart somewhat when red or blue details, like the bridge railings, are shown. The Falcon 3D footage doesn't work nearly as well as Enterprise. I suspect it's because the Falcon doesn't have a lot of edges which would make a 3D effect more obvious.
Thank Ibthar that it worked for someone!
[Cancel the Omega 13! You can do that, right?]
Yes, I know this is how the 3D image is created. It just seemed that most 3D images I've seen like this don't have such a big gap between the two colours. I could be mistaken though as I am basing this on my most recent experience with 3D.
As I have already said, it's probably my glasses. I am using the ones created for the Superbowl and the 3D episode of Chuck which use the ColorCode process. Incidentally, they worked just fine for the Chuck episode so I don't have a problem processing 3D images.
When I get home from work tonight I'll have a look at a few more random 3D images on the web using the same glasses to see if it works for them.
I'm sorry TheSeeker.
Obviously Bitmanagement has some things to answer for!
That was some episode on Chuck and the Chick...
Especially at the beginning where she got all slinky...
I definitely wished that I had 3d glasses for that...
OK, it's definitely the glasses. I checked a few random 3D images on the web and it doesn't work for them either. I also just noticed after holding the glasses up to a light that the left lens is amber and not red. I thought my glasses were standard red/blue but I guess not.
Meanwhile, back at the out-house, things are piling up...!
I'm half-heartedly attempting to gather specifications for building a bowling alley in my VRML TOS Enterprise. It's on deck 21 - same deck as the pool machinery!
So I'm scouring the interweb for specs on the lanes: length, width, etc. I am unable to find out any dimensions or description of the cross-sectional shape of - you guessed it - the gutter.
And since the balls are supposed to come back to the players under the floor, that means the floor must be raised. There's only a regular-sized head-room on that deck as it is. I can't imagine raising a false floor so balls can travel under it...
I was just thinking - should I run a pole to see if it's ok to use a transporter to return bowling balls? What about instead of the pin-spotter machinery? Would it be ok to use a transporter to set the bowling pins in place?
Tell me what you think!
I'm half-heartedly attempting to gather specifications for building a bowling alley in my VRML TOS Enterprise. It's on deck 21 - same deck as the pool machinery!
So I'm scouring the interweb for specs on the lanes: length, width, etc. I am unable to find out any dimensions or description of the cross-sectional shape of - you guessed it - the gutter.
And since the balls are supposed to come back to the players under the floor, that means the floor must be raised. There's only a regular-sized head-room on that deck as it is. I can't imagine raising a false floor so balls can travel under it...
I was just thinking - should I run a pole to see if it's ok to use a transporter to return bowling balls? What about instead of the pin-spotter machinery? Would it be ok to use a transporter to set the bowling pins in place?
Tell me what you think!
In "The Day of the Dove," intership beaming seemed like risky business. On the other hand, the incident involved beaming people, not bowling balls. I assume the safety requirements for beaming bowling balls aren't quite as stringent as those for beaming sentient life forms.
Your best reference for bowling alley data would be... a real bowling alley. I'm sure that a local bowling alley manager wouldn't look at you too strangely if you were to bring a tape measure the next time you play.
Your best reference for bowling alley data would be... a real bowling alley. I'm sure that a local bowling alley manager wouldn't look at you too strangely if you were to bring a tape measure the next time you play.
Real engineering alert!
Talk about inconsistent - was cargo received in the cargo transporter and then carried to the cargo holds all over the ship? It would have made more sense to transport cargo to the holds.
I'll bet that this singular reference to intra-ship beaming was only a plot device - consider how accurate the machinery has to be in a transporter - wasn't it 1 atom from over 40,000 miles or something like that? How could the transporter system be less accurate for shorter distances: like 1 atom in 500 feet?
Doesn't make sense - so it's probably a plot device - sorry!
Speaking of inconsistencies, I found this one just a while back... wouldn't even have noticed if I hadn't been measuring everything on the bridge to make a model(!!)
This is from Space Seed:
and this is from the McMaster bridge deck plans, interpreted by me:
Can you notice the difference in the gap between the railings?
I don't think there's actually enough gap to let a person between them in the first shot...
Who else has inconsistencies like this? Maybe I'll start a thread if there's some more...
This is from Space Seed:
and this is from the McMaster bridge deck plans, interpreted by me:
Can you notice the difference in the gap between the railings?
I don't think there's actually enough gap to let a person between them in the first shot...
Who else has inconsistencies like this? Maybe I'll start a thread if there's some more...
Here's another inconsistency:
the window (aka porthole!) arrangement on deck 6 and 7 is pretty much impossible,
unless the windows on deck 6 have ledges on the floor, and the windows on deck 7 have their tops at ceiling height...
Here's what I mean - my model and the filming miniature:
the window (aka porthole!) arrangement on deck 6 and 7 is pretty much impossible,
unless the windows on deck 6 have ledges on the floor, and the windows on deck 7 have their tops at ceiling height...
Here's what I mean - my model and the filming miniature:
Here's my favourite pic of the VRML TOS Enterprise:
Here's another inconsistency:
the window (aka porthole!) arrangement on deck 6 and 7 is pretty much impossible,
unless the windows on deck 6 have ledges on the floor, and the windows on deck 7 have their tops at ceiling height...
Here's what I mean - my model and the filming miniature:
Is this what you were talking about upthread? I thought you meant the horizontal spacing of the windows. but yeah, the vertical spacing leaves something to be desired as well. just one of many things, as you say, that just don't quite add up!
I have another inconsistency - the height of the base of the impulse engine cowl (at the aft end of the primary hull) is higher than the impulse engine on the film set:
The grey band in the lowest part of the window onto the impulse engine reveals that for the cowl outside the ship, the arrangement inside the ship doesn't correlate.
The grey band in the lowest part of the window onto the impulse engine reveals that for the cowl outside the ship, the arrangement inside the ship doesn't correlate.
Similar threads
