Gerald Heine’s stereo microscope uses a field sequential method for generating 3D video. A CRT draws half the screen’s lines with each frame. So, if you send the video from two different cameras on alternating frames you can generate a 3D using shutter glasses. Gerald’s setup uses the sync signal from one camera to control the other. Both video signals are fed into his custom 3D video sync box which combines the frames into a single video feed and also outputs a control signal for shutter glasses.
wtf, what an idiot, poster 1 and 2
this is pretty interesting, but what good does 3d do on a microscope? I mean stuff is flat under the slide in the microscope, so why have it in 3d if it’s physically flat anyway?
Wrong. Stereo microscope. Not a high zoom, but 3D…that’s why the use ’em. Or at least…that’s what we learned in Biology…lol
But think about it…what’s the point of it being stereo if it’s 2D?
“Flat” is relative. Something that’s so small as to require a microscope to be seen won’t be squished perfectly flat under a microscope slide. It probably won’t be affected by the slide at all.
Besides, as you can see in the link, the stereo microscope was a piece of standard kit that he picked up, rather than something he built himself. The stereo microscopes are also standard equipment in medical labs… at least in TV shows. ;) So there must be a benefit to having 3D microscopic vision. I doubt hospitals would be paying for stereo microscopes just ’cause doctors think they’re cooler than the monocular ones.
why use a 3d goggle getup? just split the screen, put the left image on the right (and vice versa) and do a simple crosseye method.
Like these: http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=crosseye%203d&
#6 you think people would really want to cross their eyes to look closely at 3d samples? It really strains the eyes.
I hope your joking.
the cross-eye technique (which I had to learn for a molecular bio class, looking at enzyme structure and such) is difficult to do and not simple, and painful to do for any length of time.
i have looked through stereo microscopes- the benefit of 3d is that these microscopes dont generally use slides, rather petri dishes so the object is not flat in the slide but 3d in a dish!
I’ve used stereo microscopes when repairing circuit boards with tiny capacitors and resistors. Having 3D really helps when doing that.
oh, ok #12, I see what you mean, it would be better with petri dishes.
I use the cross-eyed technique all the time… I even have a small gallery of a few cross eyed 3D photos I’ve taken:
http://web-nine.com/gallery/3D
The key is picking the proper distance, the further away you are the less strain is causes (because you’re not crossing your eyes as much) this is particularly important for larger cross eyed photos that would take up your whole screen, you’d be better off taking a step or two away from your desk.
If you over cross your eyes easily then you’re at a good distance, but if you have to strain to line up the center image then you’re probably too close.
Even still I agree that for any length of time you’d be much better off with something like shutter glasses. The cross-eyed thing is really a novelty at best.
Another benefit of this microscope would be the ability to put the images on a virtual reality screen and not only view but also manipulate the image while seeing everything in 3d stereoscopic glasses.