3D viewer + The Elements for iPad = stereoscopic scienceporn


24 Responses to “3D viewer + The Elements for iPad = stereoscopic scienceporn”

  1. Anonymous says:

    that is an awesome use for an ipad. is there an iphone version?

  2. Sigh Stone says:

    This seems very, very nice. Reminds me of a Viewmaster!However, as I have sight in only one eye (childhood accident) I’ve never been able to take part in 3-D imagery. I’m not even a candidate for Lasik!

    It’s only slightly depressing to see the current explosion of 3-D television and cinema…but I will cheer on the technology from the wings

    • BookGuy says:

      Not me, Sigh Stone. I’m also of the one-eyed variety of human, and I vow to fight this “three dimensional” crap with all of my might. Live in 2D as I do, brothers and sisters! Throw off your corporate 3D overlords! Who’s with me?

    • Anonymous says:

      Hi just read through this and saw your comments, have you tried looking at 3d wobbly, wiggly gifs, sometime these are i believe able to purvey a sense of 3d to people who suffer from visual problems. neil

  3. holtt says:

    Neal Stephenson has an essay from 1999 titled, “In the beginning was the Command Line” (see http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html)

    It’s really worth a read as it’s message is pretty timely for this whole debate. He goes to some extent to look at parallels between comptuers (OSs) and cars, which is a metaphor that’s come up here recently.

    Here’s a short excerpt where he’s talking about a friend’s old rusty, but fun MGB when he was growing up…

    In retrospect, this was telling me two things about people’s relationship to technology. One was that romance and image go a long way towards shaping their opinions. If you doubt it (and if you have a lot of spare time on your hands) just ask anyone who owns a Macintosh and who, on those grounds, imagines him- or herself to be a member of an oppressed minority group.

    The other, somewhat subtler point, was that interface is very important. Sure, the MGB was a lousy car in almost every way that counted: balky, unreliable, underpowered. But it was fun to drive. It was responsive. Every pebble on the road was felt in the bones, every nuance in the pavement transmitted instantly to the driver’s hands. He could listen to the engine and tell what was wrong with it. The steering responded immediately to commands from his hands. To us passengers it was a pointless exercise in going nowhere–about as interesting as peering over someone’s shoulder while he punches numbers into a spreadsheet. But to the driver it was an experience. For a short time he was extending his body and his senses into a larger realm, and doing things that he couldn’t do unassisted.

    Remember, he wrote this in 1999. And as someone who’s got an MG (Midget) he’s nailed why I love that car in all it’s tinkerer’s glory and things like the iPad and iPhone at the same time.

    • kaffeen says:

      OT: I don’t agree with your conclusion/analogy, but I do wish Neal would write more novels as good as that book. What a great novel. For whatever it is worth, I seriously doubt NS is an iPad lover; he seems more of an open source kind of guy to me (i.e. no limitations and freedom to all).

      • holtt says:

        Thanks kaffeen. I’m probably biased because I drive a little MG every day and his assessment of it was spot on :)

        • mothyham says:

          but you can’t tinker with the iPhone or the iPad.
          you can just play with it, as is.
          U cannot MODIFY it at all.
          SO how is it like an MG?

          • holtt says:

            It’s fun to drive like an MG – that’s probably the biggest part.

            And the modifying? Being a programmer, I do that via writing software and web content that isn’t distinguishable from a standalone app. That and using the phone as a tool to “modify” my social space by posting live tweets recommending great restaurants, sharing pictures with my parents when on the road, etc.

            It also modifies me. It lets me do things anywhere and everywhere (there’s a signal) if I want to.

  4. Effsix says:

    Didn’t those old red plastic slidey-show things alredy do this? Like, layered photos that induce 3 dimenional depth? I mean it’s wicked an’ all that you can make your own 3d hoo-hah, but don’t try to convince me that it’s innovative. It’s just about time, is what it is, and frankly I won’t be satisfied until we have r2d2 3d laser video messages (I don’t even care care if it’s blue and static-y). I only just caught up to “Aliens” by having a video skype chat with a friend in Italy. I did think though that if I woke up in my pants, I wouldn’t answer a video call with the camera enabled. Even if it was an emergency, and someone in the ship needed me, that I didn’t want to see in my pants.

  5. adamnvillani says:

    funwithstuff at #2 is correct. Stereoscopic viewers are handy, but you can train your eyes to do the same thing. Remember those “Magic Eye” books from the 90s? I used a lot of stereoscopes looking at aerial photos in a geology class and eventually realized I didn’t need the viewers most of the time.

  6. johnnyaction says:

    These glasses are so much cooler than people may think at first. The amount and kind of stereoscopic images available are pretty darn cool. Vintage stereoscopy has left behind some incredibly vivid, if not color correct, views of the past.

    I don’t have the viewer or ipad but I am curious to know how well they work with existing stereoscopic galleries such as: http://www.stereoscopy.com/gallery/index.html some NSFW stuff.

  7. holtt says:

    At first glance (har) this kind of 3D seems sort of outdated – vintage and View-Master.

    But thinking about it, it’s about the most pure form of 3D you can do on a flat surface. No mixing of red/blue, no alternating frames for left and right eye. Just one picture for each eye.

    I guess better would be something literally like a View-Master that you hold up to your eyes, with a little LCD inside for each eye. Now that would be a cool hack…

  8. J France says:

    Xeni, you’re not genuinely suggesting the iPad should go into class rooms are you?

    It’ll cripple, hinder and retard those vibrant little minds. Choke all their dreams of C++ and destroy Linux-related fantasies that they all, no doubt, harbour deep within.


  9. Douglas says:

    Use the manufacturer’s site to but the Pixie viewer or the Loreo Lite viewer (iPhone and iPod viewing)


  10. Clemoh says:

    It really does make you wonder why the new 3D TV systems require $400 glasses(not to mention the $3500 television and $400 3D DVD players) when there are convincing, cost-effective and perfectly good ways to watch things in 3D already. I hope people abandon this ‘cutting-edge’ quackery.

  11. Douglas says:

    but = buy

  12. kaffeen says:

    I’ll pass, I already have a very good pair of 3D eyeballs.

  13. funwithstuff says:

    You can get the same effect as these glasses if you’re able to train your eyes in the right way. Two ways to do it: parallel viewing (as used here) and cross-eyes (the images are swapped).

    Search Stare-e-o on Google.

    Great for objects like this, but no good for full screen video as you need to be able to show two images side by side.

    Modern 3D TVs use alternating images with synced glasses, more complex and more effective.

  14. John Greg says:

    Oh goody! I can now spend hundreds, even thousands of dollars to get an electronic version of a Mattel Viewmaster 3d. And even less practical and convenient too!

    Gosh. Life is so much fun with apples.

Leave a Reply