Best way to explain to child or senior?

[anxiousinfusion]

First off, my apologies if this is in the wrong section.
I need a good explanation on the difference between video and real-time 3D rendering that a child or senior could understand. How can I describe what my computer is doing to curious family members without them thinking I essentially dropped $1400 on a DVD player?

 

[blackhawk1928]

Hmm...interesting challenge. I would say that video is pre-recorded simply playing from the source, while real-time rendering is making the video on the fly...so basically here is what I'd say, although I could be entirely wrong, this isn't my arena of knowledge.

Maybe you can say:

"Video is pre-made and all the player has to do is play it, while real-time rendering is making the video on the fly and playing it at the same time."

 

[anwaypasible]

a solid followup would be 'a pixel is a pixel'
video is a grid of pixels.
3d renderings are the SAME grid of pixels.

the question is not 'what is the difference between video and real-time 3d rendering'
the actual question is 'what is the difference between 2d and 3d'
because video rendering is always the same.
something is providing pixel information.
it could be a movie.. frame by frame.
or
it could be a video camera.. frame by frame.

that is why i said a pixel is a pixel.

2d is going to be seen as flat.
3d is going to be seen as going in deep into the screen .. or popping out of the screen.

3d rendering takes x,y,z axis view in cache (or memory) and makes a flat picture based on where the camera is.
the camera will have x,y,z coordinates that lay a blanket over anything in front of it.
the blanket is a 2d pixel grid.

 

[anxiousinfusion]

I ended up describing it as a flip book (video) versus coordinate calculations/geometry (rendering). I know it's a little off but they seemed to grasp the concept of just how much work this is doing. Thank you.

 

[anxiousinfusion]

Best answer selected by anxiousinfusion.

 

[anwaypasible]

i might as well add..


do not feel lied to or deceived about 2D televisions that can display depth.
these are not 3D televisions.. they are simply very good at showing depth.

reality check:
build a room with one wall as an entire television.
the very best 2D television will show a bump on the wall, and the wall will seem like it goes for a mile deep.

3D televisions will show much more than a bump.. as if the person is walking out of the screen and walking into the middle of the room.
but
they dont have as much depth.
yes, they might go 1/2 a mile deep.. but there is a limit as to how deep they go if you want the popping out to be extreme.
its basically a slider.. you can have it 75% popping out and 25% depth.
or
75% depth and 10% popping out + 15% extra clarity.

if you want to get both, you need to add a projector or some combination of hardware to build a monstor.



see.. a camera can bend the photo sensor like a spoon to get depth.
a 2D television takes a simple pixel grid to operate.

a 3D television gets those extra angle coordinates to make the 3D magic happen.

tricking your brain into wanting to walk into the television is very easy, and requires nothing special but a clear camera.. hell even 480p has lots of depth (just not lots of clarity)

i do believe the 480p has gotten much better with depth and focus.
but
it is the same problem with 720p and 1080p ... people dont know how to FOCUS.

all cameras are designed for up close / medium / far away.
if your camera claims to do all three (or even only two) then your focus lens assembly is uber expensive.
usually it is filled with gas to allow the focal point to change.
if you really opened it up, it would look like something more mellow-dramatic than divinci code.

the movie producers are using up close cameras for medium range.. and it is showing.
there is a lot of news stations that have the right camera for the right distance, and you can clearly see the picture is much more clear.


anybody who wears glasses 24 hours / 7 days a week .. can tell you the lens itself is uber important.
then you have all of the contraptual design behind the lens that adjusts the clarity once again.

there is no such thing as changing your focus.
you calibrate the lens to the photo optical sensor ONCe and leave it.
the camera will see up close and medium and far away with perfect depth.

NOBODY is going to see far away without a telescope.
telescopes are made for one optimal zoom increase, or all of the different magnification levels have sacrificed perfection and the results on a variable lens are averaged for any possible 'selection' of magnification. (these are the most expensive)

it is better to simply get a camera with the 'fixed' focus (this is perfection level one)
then get a telescope from a store that sells a 'fixed' magnification level (this is perfection level two)


a lot of those cameras have a lens over the photo optical sensor already when you screw the focus lens off.
you HAVE TO have the lens to keep the dust off of the optical sensor .. DUH.

close to perfect cameras are what lately ?
those point and shoot cameras of course !!

the $99 flip HD camera is about the best money can buy before you are taking food out of your mouth.


let me tell you this..
if the lens that keeps the dust off your photo optical sensor is making everything look like it is very far away, it means the lens you screw on is making everything look magnified.
you really shouldnt be involving yourself in those twisted/morbid situations if perfection is what you are after.


i personally believe there are thousands of situations worth taking a photo.
i would say millions.. but i dont care what your children or people i dont know are doing (90% of the time)

those things are sensitive because there is an alignment process.
next comes gas inside the chamber.
too much smacking around and you 'stir' the gas that is not ment to be stirred.
and
too much NOT stirring the gas is bad if the gas is ment to be stirred.


a very serious hobby, photoptics.. mainly because of how serious the situation being captured is.
(the same can be said for audio too)
(the same can be said for smell)
(the same can be said for taste)
(the same can be said for feel)
(the same can be said for the environment you are subjected to / in)