Separating 3d video games into left and right eye without going commando?

First of all I know the method of going commando for filming 3D videos you just take an sq11 and put them inside each eye of a Sony shutter scope glasses and film it like you were filming something locally and aim it at the TV.

That'll work with any 3D game that uses an alternate frames method or a polarized alternate lines method because your natively capturing it behind a filter. In fact Sony booby trapped the HDMI port so you can't natively stream 3D games in HDMI and HDMI is the only way to get 3D.

I got a couple of Xbox 360 games mostly Indies but also Sonic generations that I would like to eventually do the non-commando way the more studio accurate way of presenting 3D video.

There is a website called bino3d.org which talks about mcintosh's up to OS 10.13.

This is a nice attempt but I think there are three things that are wrong with it (as far as I could tell. I may be wrong). The first is I can't use it because it uses some scripting language you have to go into terminal for. The second is that it only seems to work on pre-recorded video and not live video. And the third is I don't know if it'll work with OS 13.0.1.

Has anyone had experience with bino 3D? Is command line operation fairly easy to someone who is told that command line terminal is the computer equivalent of open heart surgery: you do not go in unless you absolutely know what you're doing.

Does it do live streams or does it only do pre-recorded video?

I heard the features include converting lots of forms of 3d between one form and another.

I currently broadcast on Twitch in 32x9 which is the Google cardboard format for 3D video. It works in 2D if you're willing to zoom in on one of the two eyes but it's kind of annoying to do it unless you had a program to do it for you and that affect your chat.

They're basically for maybe five different conversions I would like and I think these are probably the four easiest ones that are least taxing: zoom in on left eye only, zoom in on right eye only, convert to 16x9 side by side half for 3D TVs, and convert to monochromized red and cyan anaglyph. (Meaning the picture will look 3D in black and white when looking with red and cyan glasses).

I would ask for Dubois red and cyan except that seems like the most complicated of the basic conversions. I could easily describe all the other conversions mathematically but why is a process that mixes real world color inputs and and mixes the output of both real world color information and depth information in the same frame which I have no idea how to pretend to understand.

It probably be easier to switch to green and magenta or blue and yellow than it is to do Dubois.

tripletopper said:

Sony booby trapped the HDMI port so you can't natively stream 3D games in HDMI and HDMI is the only way to get 3D.

Click to expand...

How? Do you have technical details? Is it a similar concept to this old thing?:

---

At any rate, the intended display device must be able to handle it, and so I'd imagine that a similar thing either will or already has happened as it did with normal TV inputs:

The chip behind a TV's HDMI input connector must be able to handle an encrypted signal, since that's exactly the intended use for those signals. But since TV's are so wildly popular, all of their parts have become insanely cheap. Thus, when looking for an HDMI input chip to use in any other product, a cheap manufacturer will likely just grab one from the TV-parts catalog. So now that device also accepts encrypted video, just like a TV does! (because it literally uses the exact same chip)

Legally, if the input is encrypted (the input chip may report that to a "master control chip" inside the same device), then the complete device (if it's not a display itself) is supposed to output an encrypted signal as well (usually that's by the "master control chip" telling the output chip(s) to encrypt it again), but do you really think a cheap device is going to do that? It's another source of bugs, and thus dissatisfied know-nothing customers of a know-little business. The end result is that the cheap end of things often double as encryption strippers without ever actually saying so.

Technically those devices are illegal, but that law is also unenforceable. Waaaay too much volume to even make a dent in it.

I know this because Mac decided at one point to always encrypt the HDMI output regardless of whether it was showing a movie or just the desktop, or a set of slides that a guest presenter made to show to an audience on an installed projection system that converts to a long-range never-encrypted format to get from the podium to the projector. The converter to that long-range format dutifully rejects an encrypted signal, just like it's supposed to, but the cabling can't be replaced, and neither can the guest laptop. Thus, by always encrypting everything, Apple created a market for universal UN-encrypting of everything, just so people can do things that are otherwise perfectly legal! (like showing their own slides with no third-party content)
(Put one of those cheap devices at the front of the chain, immediately after the guest laptop, used as a "dumb passthrough" using 1 in and 1 out, and we have slides! Yay!)

Maybe a similar thing either has or will soon happen to 3D video?

---

With all that said, DON'T USE IT TO RIP OFF SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK!!! The reason these hurdles exist, is because most people want to do exactly that, and they're too technologically stupid to bypass them. It really doesn't take much to bypass them, if you know how, but then you need to be responsible yourself, and respect others' work.

For example, if you made something, you probably wouldn't want someone else to associate it with something unsavory (regardless of whether they see it that way or not), or provide an alternative way for people to get it without paying you for it. So you create agreements with people that promise not to do that, and you check them on those agreements. If you see someone acting outside of an agreement with you, then you'd probably be uncomfortable at best, and may decide to use the legal system to kill them, as is your right.

Likewise for anyone that you might use in your content. They probably won't like you using their stuff without permission. So don't.