More 2D-3D-VR

Here’s another look at the differences between 2D-3D-VR. This one comes from Germany.

Seeing 2D-3D-VR

Folks are often confused with the differences between 2D, 3D, and VR. I ran into this visual interpretation on LinkedIn, which I am reproducing here, for all to see. I thought it might help a few folks.

Still, this graphic has at least three problems:

1. It represents 3D glasses as anaglyph only, which is anachronistic. It ignores passive and active 3D glasses and may therefore confuse novices.
2. It does not represent auto-stereoscopic 3D at all in its limited taxonomy. Glasses-free 3D only requires a screen—no glasses.
3. The graphic does not provide an accurate representation of most VR glasses

Can you identify any other problems with this chart?

Wanted Again: 3D Educators

The Opportunity

Presente3D, an innovative startup company, is looking for insightful educator feedback on their product. Presente3D enables 3D content creation through a truly easy-to-use and extremely flexible ribbon bar add-on to PowerPoint 2010. Their tag line is "taking 2D PowerPoint into the Third Dimension." It enables the educator, e-trainer, or student to turn their presentations into a 3D format, but more importantly, to turn any graphic or chart within a PowerPoint into a 3D object that can be manipulated in space and depth.

If you are interested in exploring this tool, you own PowerPoint 2010, and can provide in-the-field practical feedback as an educator, visit Presente3D's website to sign up for their 3D PowerPoint Beta program. If you want to contact them directly, do so at this email address. 

Why Language Matters

“I remember sitting on a National Science Foundation panel some years ago, feverishly sorting through 10-12 semi-final proposals in a high-stakes review for a major grant award. As one particular grant came to the head of the queue for a thorough panel discussion, it was clear that the technology-based theme introduced in the grant had been misinterpreted by most of the distinguished panelists crowded into our luxurious hotel conference room. I carefully tried to explain the grant writer’s intent to my peer panelists, but lack of clarity won out. Since the theme was interpreted in completely different ways by the panelists, the result was inevitable: the grant, a quite promising technology proposal, was not recommended for funding.”

This personal experience reflects the challenges we face when we don’t subscribe to a common language—a shared understanding—of the technology we embrace. I believe that this has now become a paramount issue, one vital for claiming the hoped-for footprint of 3D technology in K-16 classrooms.

Over the last year, I’ve often experienced considerable misunderstanding about the term ‘3D’.  Some of the unfortunate negative effects I’ve observed firsthand include:

-         Customers and conference attendees don’t attend sessions offered on the topic

-         Conference organizers obscure 3D presentations by shunting them toward less desirable venues, times, or days—or they deny presentation proposals altogether.

-         National think tanks, committees, publications, or thought leaders offer only the slightest consideration of stereoscopic 3D in their thinking, planning, white papers, or initiatives

-         School technology leaders think it’s just entertainment, so it’s simply not on their radar

The above happen because decision makers (and I’ve talked to so very many) are very busy people, can’t always keep current in our constantly evolving technology landscape, and simply don’t understand what stereo 3D is (or they think S-3D is something that it is not).

If we are hoping to convince school district leaders, persuade a principal, or induce parents to encourage classroom investments in 3D technology, then we need to be sure we have the same thing in mind. If we are planning to sell to schools, persuade distributors to carry and support products, or engage integrators to make it all work, then we need to be speaking the same language. 


But is educational stereoscopic 3D somewhat different from what we think stereo 3D is? I think so. So please check back with us for a concluding blog post, as we offer a startling realization about the nature of S-3D in classrooms. Cue the mystery music…

A Common Language

Over the last year, I have overheard many 3D professionals label ‘true’ 3D as:

3D (just 3D)

Stereoscopic 3D

Stereo 3D

3D Stereo

S3D

More importantly, I have heard non-3D technologies portrayed as:

3D (just 3D)

3D-like

Monoscopic 3D

Non-stereo 3D

Virtual 3D

Pseudo 3D

Although most of the public simply uses the term ‘3D’, Chris Chinnock, president of Insight Media and publisher of Large Display Report has long fretted over the confusion our mixed-up terminology causes in the minds of consumers, educators, and decision makers. Chinnock, an expert in projection, 3D, and display technologies, suggests that we use the term “rendered 3D” to refer to CAD drawings and other animations (computer-generated imagery or CGI) that use light, shading, texture, or perspective to create a simple ‘sense’ of 3D.  He separates this type of imagery from “stereoscopic 3D” (or S-3D), which involves the use of left and right eye image pairs. Chinnock advises educators: “I strongly urge you to adopt this [terminology] in the education field to start to help differentiate the differences.  We need to start with a common language.”

In our next post, we will explain why a common language—a shared understanding—is so important. In the meanwhile, please try out this social experiment embedded below. Imagine you were planning a presentation on stereoscopic 3D, but really wanted to draw the attention of conference organizers and attendees. What terminology would you use and why? Please contribute below...

What's In a Name?

Throughout this blog, there is an ongoing debate thread about what 3D is and what it is not. You can follow that thread by reviewing any of the links below:

Olympics in 3D

3D @ ISTE 2010

TEDx DenverEd

3D Shoot

Stereo 3D Unpacked

3D @ ISTE 2011

Whether talking to parents, teachers, friends, relatives, professors, or casual acquaintances—it has become clear that the term 3D means different things to different people. Some think 3D is evidenced in Google Earth, when you zoom in to view a 3D-rendered scene; some think it is one of the 3D-like video games they play on their Xbox, PlayStation, or Wii; others think it’s nothing more than designing a 3D object using AutoCAD or SolidWorks; and still others see 3D as simply an entertaining app running on their Droid or iPhone.  Even more people feel 3D best describes an immersive virtual world such as Second Life. Sadly, none of these is what we mean by stereoscopic 3D. 

But this lack of shared understanding is now getting in the way. It’s getting in the way of teachers trying to explain it to principals; it’s standing in the way of resellers trying to sell 3D to education decision makers; and it remains a stubborn obstacle obstructing the pathway of 3D content providers trying to explain their visually rich offerings to all of the above-mentioned groups. So, in this and a short series of coming posts, we will attempt to conjure up a common language about what 3D is—with a surprise ending—how educational 3D is different, still.

New Content Update

The landscape for 3D educational content is constantly improving. In this post we will highlight some of the latest developments.

JTM

JTM Concepts has recently upgraded the graphics on most of their simulations, now featuring a richer, deeper negative parallax experience for the classroom. Teachers will love it. They have also introduced a promising new DNA simulation activity (screen shots shown below).

 

Safari Montage

Safari Montage has recently partnered with Cyber-Science to bring interactive 3D models in both stereo and non-stereo to their already rich media product line. Two premium product lines now partnering--it's a very good sign.

Designmate

Designmate has expanded their animated video product line to include 6,000 topics for the K12 curriculum, including virtual experiments and interactives. For those unfamiliar with this company, they produce highly-focused and studio-quality video shorts. These video segments are typically 4 minutes in length, which is just perfect for the classroom. Designmate currently features more than 200+ stereoscopic topics within the science curriculum. Most importantly, they have aggressively reduced prices and are marketing one of the most cost-effective solutions I have seen. And what a collection!

Stereo 3D Unpacked

Everywhere I seem to go, I recognize a common misconception people have about 3D. There's actually quite a difference between a 3D-like image and the type of 3D we see in cinemas. For that reason, I created this short visual tutorial. It seems to help educators understand 3D a bit better.

The Olympics in 3D?

During the last winter Olympic games, the nation was invited to view the Olympics in 3D.

The familiar "3D" catchphrase is used here, but I am uncomfortable with the thought that it is really the same thing we have been discussing in this blog. The key questions are: "Are virtual walkthroughs, tours, or flyovers really 3D or are they merely simplified representations of 3D in a planar image?"  "Is a Google Earth community flyover a true 3D experience?"  "Is a 3D Art Gallery or a virtual open house walkthrough really a 3D or more of a first-person observer point of view?"

So far, I am still in deliberation; I am still trying to wrap my mind around where this particular "3D" concept fits. My preliminary instincts suggests that this is simply a first-person precursor to the stereoscopic 3D we have been discussing in this blog, that it is not really 3D because it doesn't come out of the screen or show strong depth of field. On the other hand, it is not as passive as watching a 3D movie, and may therefore fit our 3D taxonomy somewhere between movies and learning objects. But how do we justify that with a 2D planar image?

More to come on this topic later, but for now, consider exploring the links above.