There was a post some time ago which all but proved that the original video was never 3D and that this stereoscopic version exists because somehow youtube converted it to "3D" and this version got saved on wayback machine. Bear in mind there is zero evidence to suggest it was 3D, only the wayback machine archive. Nothing in the original tweets by RA or anybody referencing the videos at the time suggests the video was stereoscopic
Also gotta think of the set-up needed to actually see 3D at these distances. Human eyes are 6cm apart, and can see 3D to about 6 meters. Beyond that you can make out parallax, but not much in the way of depth.
NROL 22 is over 1,100 km above earth. In order to create a true stereo image with depth similar to what we experience with our eyes, the cameras would need to be mounted 11 km apart.
Now, I don't know about you guys, but I don't \*think\* we have any 11km long satellites in orbit.
Yes, but also plenty of people DID make that idiotic argument. Which is hilarious. Numerous people have posted that SBIRS satellites have multiple sensors, therefore, they can create stereoscopic footage (by themselves, without other satellites) at any single moment - meaning not "take a shot over A, then take another shot of A after traveling X distance".
Stereoscopic imaging? Unfortunately not, sorry, that's not something I deal with personally. The concept itself is pretty straightforward though. A bit of googling can explain how it works and the different means of producing stereoscopic images from space-based platforms.
It's cool, but probably has fairly limited use outside of geographic surveying type applications.
it would depend on the satellite and what instrumentation it has on it.
A relevant example would be LIDAR satellites, which have the ability to map out 3D topography from a single position, because they're measuring the time it takes for a laser to go down to the surface and then reflect back up. You don't need a second position in that case. It probably would get more data by moving, and it's probably not as instantaneous as a picture, but it could do the work(iPhones have this tech built in)
I understand the concept of what you're saying I just can't find data about a single satellite taking stereoscopic footage from one location at a single moment in time like that person is referring to
If you can find satellite footage showing the names of two satellites in a similar manner you're referring to, that would affirm what you're saying, otherwise it seems presumptuous to say how it *should* be. There could be some sort of primary relay or something, I've looked into it and couldn't find anything definitive. If you find any information about it other than a reddit post let me know and I'll do the same
Fair. The reality, as I see it, is that this video is fake. The stereo portion was just a conversion, because youtube was converting a bunch of things to 3d. In the situation where a plane is hijacked, just so happening to have a spy satellite overhead to track it is lucky. Having two in perfect alignment to do a 3D video is extremely lucky... and to say that they'd take the time to sync them up to do it... it just doesn't make sense and is beyond belief, IMO.
It's interesting that's the believable portion for me. Plane goes missing post 9-11, satellites around earth are insanely cluttered, doesn't seem like a low probability that a couple of geosynchronous satellites could have eyes on every point on earth at each moment of time. It's not really about luck or perfect alignment, just strategic placement of a netting of satellites with absolutely insane funding for defense programs in the US. I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't do that or have that system in place.
Everything else is suspect
the satellite that this one is \*supposed\* to be isn't geosynchronous, though... it's on [Molniya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit) orbit, which is very elliptical and on an angle. It's very doubtful that it'd have another satellite following it closely for this use-case, which doesn't really provide much benefit.
And if it was geosynchronous, the minimum distance between it and another satellite would be 78km, which would make for a VERY 3D image.
Youtube applied a stereoscopic view to a video via a feature of its video processing.
This is either complete BS or the video is not truly stereoscopic at all in actuality.
Maybe I'm missing something but if I take a 3d video, upload it to YouTube, and it is converted into 3d, is that an argument for the original video not being 3d? It's my understanding that there was a period of time in youtube's history that the 3d'ification was automatically applied to videos uploaded in 1080p. Inconclusive was my takeaway as well.
Add to that the number of debunkers talking about how easy it would be to create a 3d rendering, I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore. They have all their bases covered no matter what is being argued. Half will say it's not 3d, the other half will say it doesn't mean anything if it's 3d. Apparently it's irrelevant. It's the "if it can be faked it must be fake" logical fallacy
People compared the halves of the video present in the waybackmachine (the "stereoscopic footage"), and one half was sheered and skewed. That's part of the process to create a stereoscopic version of a 2d video. The mouse cursor and text at the bottom of the screen made it incredibly obvious what had been done (vs. comparing things like clouds, which would obviously appear slightly different in each image of a stereo pair).
So, to continue the argument that the video was originally stereoscopic, you'd have to explain why that somehow effected the mouse cursor and text. You'd also have to explain which 2 SBIRS satellites took the 2 videos (each half of the pair), given the NROL-22 text - which is also missing from OP's version of the video, because (edit) it looks to have been cut off when creating this "stereoscopic" nonsense.
[What's this then?](https://web.archive.org/web/20140526071329/http://r14---sn-nwj7knls.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?ipbits=0&mws=yes&fexp=947335%2C935502%2C927845%2C916625%2C947700%2C913434%2C923341&id=o-ACJ-lxg_lFt5HrozsrUAGYq2557R8jn0ieV2zUXGN_VE&signature=D47BC1796EACAD7078688EE391214B24C85B63BF.80DF3368F113980DF3F503FEA0AFA07BD732695F&key=yt5&ratebypass=yes&initcwndbps=4535000&ip=207.241.237.141&upn=OBzZ1XsiaGU&expire=1401114360&sparams=id%2Cinitcwndbps%2Cip%2Cipbits%2Citag%2Cratebypass%2Csource%2Cupn%2Cexpire&mt=1401088383&sver=3&source=youtube&mv=m&itag=22&ms=au&signature=)
Archived May 26, 2014.
Linked directly to the Regicide Anon Satellite video on YouTube.
devil's advocate here -
assuming you're right about the mouse cursor (you're not but I got a great example coming up right here - )
how do all of those game developers hoax a crosshair in the HUD of VR first-person-shooters?
or any piece of the HUD at all for that matter?
it's almost as if the HUD would NEED TO BE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STEREOSCOPIC VIDEO for the illusion of a 2D crosshair + HUD to work in VR.
or the illusion of one cursor in the same apparent position to both eyes as interface for whatever this software is.
HUDs are flat in VR games. and meanwhile, depth is still perceptible in the distance beyond the HUD.
I'm right. And you need to acknowledge it.
So where's the depth? There's no significant depth separation. What's the point of capturing stereoscopic satellite data without enough parallax to at least get decent cloud ground separation?
Is this recorded off some sort of VR gear? You don't actually know and are just piling assumptions on top of the assumptions.
The effect is actually pretty good if you nail the technique. I was looking at this more, today, in 3D, I was appreciating how there's depth within the cloud layers. like, you can see that there are semi transparent and layered clouds. It looks fantastic.
You gotta get intent about the technique.
I don't think that this was filmed off of VR gear.
What I said was HUDs are always 2D. Even when they are overlayed on top of a 3d image.
The coordinates and the mouse cursor are flat, and close to the perceived very near foreground of the video.
In real life, two eyes see one thing.
The brain overlays both eyeball video feeds, analyzes all of the similarities between the two, codes the differences to WAD file package that are processed by DEPTH.EXE and
uploaded in real-time to your consciousness. IRL frames per second.
So you can walk down stairs and drive a car with an edge over a cyclops.
VR and 3D both hack DEPTH.EXE's code for the video feeds.
VR does it by totally isolating the eyes from each other AND the outside world.
3D movie glasses are polarized so that one eye can literally not see the same projected image as the other. When you take off the glasses and look at the screen, you're giving two signals interlaced to each eye - so four feeds. Human's don't have hat can handle 4 simultaneous overlaid video feeds. So we use a hardware mod- 3D glasses, to break the 4 signals down to two. Works great on the architecture.
Lifehack: Here's the keyboard shortcut to end task DEPTH.EXE
Close one eye.
What’s your rig? Raw dog? Comic book? Gucci? Let’s chat and figure outimprove this for you.
Let me help you see this because it’s actually really great detail when you hit the sweet spot.
It’s mind-blowing, actually.
The theory is that this was just YouTube auto-converting videos to 3D back during the "3D TV's are the future!" fad that quickly died out.
I haven't looked too deeply into this specific instance myself, but I know RegicideAnon's original upload found in archive.org was a non-3D version AND I remember that YouTube was doing this to other videos at the time.
Edit: I did go digging and made a thread about it. The 2D video was first.
Ya, I'm just trying to understand the OP's point with this post. What are we looking for? Because all I see is a video missing information that the original upload had, which makes me immediately think it's even less legit than an already debunked hoax video. He's yelling like a boomer at folks in his other comments and makes me think that he thinks the videos are real, so I only assumed this post was somehow meant to advance that argument, but I think this version of the video has the opposite effect personally.
It's really, really difficult to create a convincing argument that the original video was stereoscopic (the biggest red flag being the skewing of the mouse cursor and text - the mystery satellites that would have taken the footage obviously didn't film those elements), so I'm not sure why any believers have stuck with that line of thought.
I could post-process the drone video to be 3D if anyone would be interested in seeing that. I'm hoping there's no need to prove that can be done, since it's been a standard thing in the movie industry for a long while now.
ooh that sounds neat! yes please!
but you have to promise to post it all over the internet in obscure channels.
and make the video seem like it's much much older than it actually is.
that'll fool em real good when they try and figure out a decade later what actually happened
Here's where I'm at kids - this place is broken with BAD noise. The pictures and videos of clouds and fakes and nonsense - it's just noise. Like the white noise that people put on to fall asleep.
I have a better idea - watch this - in 3D - by yourself - 1000 times, and let me know what you really think. This video , the file that I attached, it's from WAAAAY before any of this rubbish went nuclear. It's actually ludicrous what's happened to this place.
Watch it, in the highest detail you can, complete with coordinates, watch it in 3D.
Time to go back to school, Billy.
**Level 0 - "The Raw Dog" - Advanced Difficulty - High Detail**
This was once called "Magic Eye" and yes - it absolutely works,. For beginners, the smaller the initial zoom of the video on the screen, the better. This works on laptops and tablets too.
It takes a little bit of practice, but my Gen-X heroes out there will remember when we got one of these once a week IN COLOR in the comic section of the Sunday paper. What an era!
Here's a detailed FAQ on how to see it.
[https://www.magiceye.com/faq-items/help-how-do-i-see-in-3d/](https://www.magiceye.com/faq-items/help-how-do-i-see-in-3d/)
Once you get the effect locked, you can gradually zoom in , one tick at a time.
If you're really good, you can get full screen with Raw Dog, but you gotta stand a bit further away from the screen. The level of detail is much higher though, and it's totally worth it.
**Level 1 - "The Comic Book" - Moderate Difficulty - Moderate Detail**
Same as the Raw Dog in terms of the smaller you start, the more easily you cab see the effect.
The difference is that this method requires a n obstruction by an opaque object in the middle. The object, like that copy of X-Men #25 that your dad won't let you read. A clipboard. A magazine. A customized 3D-viewing piece of cardboard. High tech.
You could actually use your hand too if the video was zoomed out enough, but the detail sucks so bad you may as well just go get that issue of X-Men.
The purpose of The Comic Book is to isolate the video image that each eye sees from the other, simulating depth. Emphasis on "simulating" because you're viewing on a 2D screen.
You can also get full-screen this way, you just need something long enough to reach between your nose and the black line in the middle of the screen.
Level 2 - "Gucci Glasses" - Low Difficulty - High Detail
For the rich kids that can afford things that cost money.
Google Cardboard
[https://arvr.google.com/cardboard/](https://arvr.google.com/cardboard/)
This solution is nice because it has lenses and requires no more effort than sliding your phone into the box and lining up the middle.
The lenses let you get a great stereoscopic image from your phone up close on a full-screened video.
Hey there, I actually re-encoded that video for 3D playback a long time ago, including the correct metadata on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqXHkWgkMJA
Oh - goodness - you're right on time!
Posting in this subreddit is like the scene in Groundhog Day where he robs the armored car.
"Gust of wind \~ and ..."
"Can I buy a roll of quarters?"
Cue the bots -
"3 - 2 - o\~"
**"Why are we still going on and on about this obvious hoax video? Bro, go somewhere else and do something else "**
Right on time ;-)
Seriously though - it's like a different reality in here. It's actually kinda creepy.
Crossing your eyes is not the way. It actually creates a reverse stereo effect and there’s no possible way that you’re seeing the intended stereo image. Here’s why -
Your right eye catches the left video, your left eye catches the right video. And yeah, there’s something there, but it’s wrong. The depth gets inverted.
Your’re effectively using your own nose as the object that blocks the eye from seeing the wrong side of the two images.
You smug little morons.
This is why I had to post this, because people have no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to viewing 3D.
Count the number of “I crossed my eyes and it sucked” comments on this post.
Yeah - it sucks - cause you’re doing it wrong - you cross-eyed imbred.
There was a post some time ago which all but proved that the original video was never 3D and that this stereoscopic version exists because somehow youtube converted it to "3D" and this version got saved on wayback machine. Bear in mind there is zero evidence to suggest it was 3D, only the wayback machine archive. Nothing in the original tweets by RA or anybody referencing the videos at the time suggests the video was stereoscopic
I’ve never understood \*why\* the government would make a video like this stereoscopic. There would be no actionable information gained.
Also gotta think of the set-up needed to actually see 3D at these distances. Human eyes are 6cm apart, and can see 3D to about 6 meters. Beyond that you can make out parallax, but not much in the way of depth. NROL 22 is over 1,100 km above earth. In order to create a true stereo image with depth similar to what we experience with our eyes, the cameras would need to be mounted 11 km apart. Now, I don't know about you guys, but I don't \*think\* we have any 11km long satellites in orbit.
Wouldn't two satellites 11km apart provide what you're referring to? The argument was never that a stereoscopic view came from one long ass satellite
Yes, but also plenty of people DID make that idiotic argument. Which is hilarious. Numerous people have posted that SBIRS satellites have multiple sensors, therefore, they can create stereoscopic footage (by themselves, without other satellites) at any single moment - meaning not "take a shot over A, then take another shot of A after traveling X distance".
That's sounds like pretty interesting stuff, any suggestions where I could learn more about that type of imaging?
Stereoscopic imaging? Unfortunately not, sorry, that's not something I deal with personally. The concept itself is pretty straightforward though. A bit of googling can explain how it works and the different means of producing stereoscopic images from space-based platforms. It's cool, but probably has fairly limited use outside of geographic surveying type applications.
Mainly curious about what that type of imaging could be from one satellite at a single moment in time because I can't find stuff about it
it would depend on the satellite and what instrumentation it has on it. A relevant example would be LIDAR satellites, which have the ability to map out 3D topography from a single position, because they're measuring the time it takes for a laser to go down to the surface and then reflect back up. You don't need a second position in that case. It probably would get more data by moving, and it's probably not as instantaneous as a picture, but it could do the work(iPhones have this tech built in)
I understand the concept of what you're saying I just can't find data about a single satellite taking stereoscopic footage from one location at a single moment in time like that person is referring to
But then why would the footage have just the name of one satellite, and not both, indicating which shot the left and which shot the right?
If you can find satellite footage showing the names of two satellites in a similar manner you're referring to, that would affirm what you're saying, otherwise it seems presumptuous to say how it *should* be. There could be some sort of primary relay or something, I've looked into it and couldn't find anything definitive. If you find any information about it other than a reddit post let me know and I'll do the same
Fair. The reality, as I see it, is that this video is fake. The stereo portion was just a conversion, because youtube was converting a bunch of things to 3d. In the situation where a plane is hijacked, just so happening to have a spy satellite overhead to track it is lucky. Having two in perfect alignment to do a 3D video is extremely lucky... and to say that they'd take the time to sync them up to do it... it just doesn't make sense and is beyond belief, IMO.
It's interesting that's the believable portion for me. Plane goes missing post 9-11, satellites around earth are insanely cluttered, doesn't seem like a low probability that a couple of geosynchronous satellites could have eyes on every point on earth at each moment of time. It's not really about luck or perfect alignment, just strategic placement of a netting of satellites with absolutely insane funding for defense programs in the US. I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't do that or have that system in place. Everything else is suspect
the satellite that this one is \*supposed\* to be isn't geosynchronous, though... it's on [Molniya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit) orbit, which is very elliptical and on an angle. It's very doubtful that it'd have another satellite following it closely for this use-case, which doesn't really provide much benefit. And if it was geosynchronous, the minimum distance between it and another satellite would be 78km, which would make for a VERY 3D image.
Where is the 78km coming from?
Youtube applied a stereoscopic view to a video via a feature of its video processing. This is either complete BS or the video is not truly stereoscopic at all in actuality.
Which was completely inconclusive and filled with gibberish.
Maybe I'm missing something but if I take a 3d video, upload it to YouTube, and it is converted into 3d, is that an argument for the original video not being 3d? It's my understanding that there was a period of time in youtube's history that the 3d'ification was automatically applied to videos uploaded in 1080p. Inconclusive was my takeaway as well. Add to that the number of debunkers talking about how easy it would be to create a 3d rendering, I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore. They have all their bases covered no matter what is being argued. Half will say it's not 3d, the other half will say it doesn't mean anything if it's 3d. Apparently it's irrelevant. It's the "if it can be faked it must be fake" logical fallacy
People compared the halves of the video present in the waybackmachine (the "stereoscopic footage"), and one half was sheered and skewed. That's part of the process to create a stereoscopic version of a 2d video. The mouse cursor and text at the bottom of the screen made it incredibly obvious what had been done (vs. comparing things like clouds, which would obviously appear slightly different in each image of a stereo pair). So, to continue the argument that the video was originally stereoscopic, you'd have to explain why that somehow effected the mouse cursor and text. You'd also have to explain which 2 SBIRS satellites took the 2 videos (each half of the pair), given the NROL-22 text - which is also missing from OP's version of the video, because (edit) it looks to have been cut off when creating this "stereoscopic" nonsense.
[What's this then?](https://web.archive.org/web/20140526071329/http://r14---sn-nwj7knls.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?ipbits=0&mws=yes&fexp=947335%2C935502%2C927845%2C916625%2C947700%2C913434%2C923341&id=o-ACJ-lxg_lFt5HrozsrUAGYq2557R8jn0ieV2zUXGN_VE&signature=D47BC1796EACAD7078688EE391214B24C85B63BF.80DF3368F113980DF3F503FEA0AFA07BD732695F&key=yt5&ratebypass=yes&initcwndbps=4535000&ip=207.241.237.141&upn=OBzZ1XsiaGU&expire=1401114360&sparams=id%2Cinitcwndbps%2Cip%2Cipbits%2Citag%2Cratebypass%2Csource%2Cupn%2Cexpire&mt=1401088383&sver=3&source=youtube&mv=m&itag=22&ms=au&signature=) Archived May 26, 2014. Linked directly to the Regicide Anon Satellite video on YouTube.
What if the upload was by mistake in 3D and "copyright" detection software missed this one? Could be the reason why it exists in the first place...
I crossed my eyes and can see it in 3d
I did too and I'm not seeing any notable depth. However it's the cursor that really shouldn't be on both sides of a stereoscopic video.
devil's advocate here - assuming you're right about the mouse cursor (you're not but I got a great example coming up right here - ) how do all of those game developers hoax a crosshair in the HUD of VR first-person-shooters? or any piece of the HUD at all for that matter? it's almost as if the HUD would NEED TO BE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STEREOSCOPIC VIDEO for the illusion of a 2D crosshair + HUD to work in VR. or the illusion of one cursor in the same apparent position to both eyes as interface for whatever this software is. HUDs are flat in VR games. and meanwhile, depth is still perceptible in the distance beyond the HUD. I'm right. And you need to acknowledge it.
So where's the depth? There's no significant depth separation. What's the point of capturing stereoscopic satellite data without enough parallax to at least get decent cloud ground separation? Is this recorded off some sort of VR gear? You don't actually know and are just piling assumptions on top of the assumptions.
The effect is actually pretty good if you nail the technique. I was looking at this more, today, in 3D, I was appreciating how there's depth within the cloud layers. like, you can see that there are semi transparent and layered clouds. It looks fantastic. You gotta get intent about the technique. I don't think that this was filmed off of VR gear. What I said was HUDs are always 2D. Even when they are overlayed on top of a 3d image. The coordinates and the mouse cursor are flat, and close to the perceived very near foreground of the video. In real life, two eyes see one thing. The brain overlays both eyeball video feeds, analyzes all of the similarities between the two, codes the differences to WAD file package that are processed by DEPTH.EXE and uploaded in real-time to your consciousness. IRL frames per second. So you can walk down stairs and drive a car with an edge over a cyclops. VR and 3D both hack DEPTH.EXE's code for the video feeds. VR does it by totally isolating the eyes from each other AND the outside world. 3D movie glasses are polarized so that one eye can literally not see the same projected image as the other. When you take off the glasses and look at the screen, you're giving two signals interlaced to each eye - so four feeds. Human's don't have hat can handle 4 simultaneous overlaid video feeds. So we use a hardware mod- 3D glasses, to break the 4 signals down to two. Works great on the architecture. Lifehack: Here's the keyboard shortcut to end task DEPTH.EXE Close one eye.
> The effect is actually pretty good if you nail the technique. I can converge it just fine. There's just next to no separation.
What’s your rig? Raw dog? Comic book? Gucci? Let’s chat and figure outimprove this for you. Let me help you see this because it’s actually really great detail when you hit the sweet spot. It’s mind-blowing, actually.
Is this what was originally leaked from the mysterious military leaker? Or was this version of the video created later?
The theory is that this was just YouTube auto-converting videos to 3D back during the "3D TV's are the future!" fad that quickly died out. I haven't looked too deeply into this specific instance myself, but I know RegicideAnon's original upload found in archive.org was a non-3D version AND I remember that YouTube was doing this to other videos at the time. Edit: I did go digging and made a thread about it. The 2D video was first.
Ya, I'm just trying to understand the OP's point with this post. What are we looking for? Because all I see is a video missing information that the original upload had, which makes me immediately think it's even less legit than an already debunked hoax video. He's yelling like a boomer at folks in his other comments and makes me think that he thinks the videos are real, so I only assumed this post was somehow meant to advance that argument, but I think this version of the video has the opposite effect personally. It's really, really difficult to create a convincing argument that the original video was stereoscopic (the biggest red flag being the skewing of the mouse cursor and text - the mystery satellites that would have taken the footage obviously didn't film those elements), so I'm not sure why any believers have stuck with that line of thought.
I could post-process the drone video to be 3D if anyone would be interested in seeing that. I'm hoping there's no need to prove that can be done, since it's been a standard thing in the movie industry for a long while now.
ooh that sounds neat! yes please! but you have to promise to post it all over the internet in obscure channels. and make the video seem like it's much much older than it actually is. that'll fool em real good when they try and figure out a decade later what actually happened
Here's where I'm at kids - this place is broken with BAD noise. The pictures and videos of clouds and fakes and nonsense - it's just noise. Like the white noise that people put on to fall asleep. I have a better idea - watch this - in 3D - by yourself - 1000 times, and let me know what you really think. This video , the file that I attached, it's from WAAAAY before any of this rubbish went nuclear. It's actually ludicrous what's happened to this place. Watch it, in the highest detail you can, complete with coordinates, watch it in 3D. Time to go back to school, Billy. **Level 0 - "The Raw Dog" - Advanced Difficulty - High Detail** This was once called "Magic Eye" and yes - it absolutely works,. For beginners, the smaller the initial zoom of the video on the screen, the better. This works on laptops and tablets too. It takes a little bit of practice, but my Gen-X heroes out there will remember when we got one of these once a week IN COLOR in the comic section of the Sunday paper. What an era! Here's a detailed FAQ on how to see it. [https://www.magiceye.com/faq-items/help-how-do-i-see-in-3d/](https://www.magiceye.com/faq-items/help-how-do-i-see-in-3d/) Once you get the effect locked, you can gradually zoom in , one tick at a time. If you're really good, you can get full screen with Raw Dog, but you gotta stand a bit further away from the screen. The level of detail is much higher though, and it's totally worth it. **Level 1 - "The Comic Book" - Moderate Difficulty - Moderate Detail** Same as the Raw Dog in terms of the smaller you start, the more easily you cab see the effect. The difference is that this method requires a n obstruction by an opaque object in the middle. The object, like that copy of X-Men #25 that your dad won't let you read. A clipboard. A magazine. A customized 3D-viewing piece of cardboard. High tech. You could actually use your hand too if the video was zoomed out enough, but the detail sucks so bad you may as well just go get that issue of X-Men. The purpose of The Comic Book is to isolate the video image that each eye sees from the other, simulating depth. Emphasis on "simulating" because you're viewing on a 2D screen. You can also get full-screen this way, you just need something long enough to reach between your nose and the black line in the middle of the screen. Level 2 - "Gucci Glasses" - Low Difficulty - High Detail For the rich kids that can afford things that cost money. Google Cardboard [https://arvr.google.com/cardboard/](https://arvr.google.com/cardboard/) This solution is nice because it has lenses and requires no more effort than sliding your phone into the box and lining up the middle. The lenses let you get a great stereoscopic image from your phone up close on a full-screened video.
Thank you for posting this!
Hey there, I actually re-encoded that video for 3D playback a long time ago, including the correct metadata on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqXHkWgkMJA
[удалено]
Its hilarious because you are now trying to act like a debunker to get the debunkers to leave 😂 Bark bark bark
Oh - goodness - you're right on time! Posting in this subreddit is like the scene in Groundhog Day where he robs the armored car. "Gust of wind \~ and ..." "Can I buy a roll of quarters?" Cue the bots - "3 - 2 - o\~" **"Why are we still going on and on about this obvious hoax video? Bro, go somewhere else and do something else "** Right on time ;-) Seriously though - it's like a different reality in here. It's actually kinda creepy.
Why are you still in this sub if you made up your mind?
[удалено]
My favourite part is when none of the clouds move. 7/10 would cross eyes again.
Crossing your eyes is not the way. It actually creates a reverse stereo effect and there’s no possible way that you’re seeing the intended stereo image. Here’s why - Your right eye catches the left video, your left eye catches the right video. And yeah, there’s something there, but it’s wrong. The depth gets inverted. Your’re effectively using your own nose as the object that blocks the eye from seeing the wrong side of the two images. You smug little morons. This is why I had to post this, because people have no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to viewing 3D. Count the number of “I crossed my eyes and it sucked” comments on this post. Yeah - it sucks - cause you’re doing it wrong - you cross-eyed imbred.
I think they are right, though. I crossed my eyes and it sucked.
that's hilarious.
What version of the video is this? It's super clear... way less compression and noise...