<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_16_2213224</id>
	<title>World's First 3D Webcam Tested</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247741400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://twitter.com/natelanxon" rel="nofollow">CNETNate</a> writes <i>"The world's first 3D webcam not only takes anaglyphic images, but will let you have a stereoscopic 3D video chat over the Internet. It's the work of a unique camera called 'Minoru,' which <a href="http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49303012,00.htm">has been tested and documented in a feature today</a>. Be warned though: anaglyphic photography was clearly not invented to create comfortably-viewable videos."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CNETNate writes " The world 's first 3D webcam not only takes anaglyphic images , but will let you have a stereoscopic 3D video chat over the Internet .
It 's the work of a unique camera called 'Minoru, ' which has been tested and documented in a feature today .
Be warned though : anaglyphic photography was clearly not invented to create comfortably-viewable videos .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNETNate writes "The world's first 3D webcam not only takes anaglyphic images, but will let you have a stereoscopic 3D video chat over the Internet.
It's the work of a unique camera called 'Minoru,' which has been tested and documented in a feature today.
Be warned though: anaglyphic photography was clearly not invented to create comfortably-viewable videos.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724935</id>
	<title>Re:Really? This is the world's first?</title>
	<author>plasticpixel</author>
	<datestamp>1247751000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not exactly world's first.  Sun Microsystems had an incredible demo about 12 years ago that involved an array of live web cams.  The user's view would shift when they moved their head side to side. You could almost look around objects.  They used LCD shutter glasses for the 3D view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not exactly world 's first .
Sun Microsystems had an incredible demo about 12 years ago that involved an array of live web cams .
The user 's view would shift when they moved their head side to side .
You could almost look around objects .
They used LCD shutter glasses for the 3D view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not exactly world's first.
Sun Microsystems had an incredible demo about 12 years ago that involved an array of live web cams.
The user's view would shift when they moved their head side to side.
You could almost look around objects.
They used LCD shutter glasses for the 3D view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725461</id>
	<title>Mine eyes! They hurt!</title>
	<author>kramulous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly I had to break out my red-blue anaglyph glasses and damn that video made my eyes and brain hurt.</p><p>The playback software has some glitches in it (not a youtube playback thing) because one image would freeze while the other eye would continue playing.  They really need to fix that.  The ad popup thing in youtube didn't help either.</p><p>It was good but a gimmick at best.  Plus all my work colleagues looked at me weird with the glasses on until they realise what the hell I was doing.  Then they came over for a gander.  Who's cool now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly I had to break out my red-blue anaglyph glasses and damn that video made my eyes and brain hurt.The playback software has some glitches in it ( not a youtube playback thing ) because one image would freeze while the other eye would continue playing .
They really need to fix that .
The ad popup thing in youtube did n't help either.It was good but a gimmick at best .
Plus all my work colleagues looked at me weird with the glasses on until they realise what the hell I was doing .
Then they came over for a gander .
Who 's cool now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly I had to break out my red-blue anaglyph glasses and damn that video made my eyes and brain hurt.The playback software has some glitches in it (not a youtube playback thing) because one image would freeze while the other eye would continue playing.
They really need to fix that.
The ad popup thing in youtube didn't help either.It was good but a gimmick at best.
Plus all my work colleagues looked at me weird with the glasses on until they realise what the hell I was doing.
Then they came over for a gander.
Who's cool now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28734107</id>
	<title>me after viewing any red/blue 3d image</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247864280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My eyes! Ze goggles do nothing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My eyes !
Ze goggles do nothing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My eyes!
Ze goggles do nothing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726691</id>
	<title>Re:Really? This is the world's first?</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1247774040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because no one wanted to step on these "did I get fat ?" discussions with tools to actually have an objective measurement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because no one wanted to step on these " did I get fat ?
" discussions with tools to actually have an objective measurement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because no one wanted to step on these "did I get fat ?
" discussions with tools to actually have an objective measurement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724707</id>
	<title>Re:I used to be a big fan of 3-D...</title>
	<author>DavidD\_CA</author>
	<datestamp>1247749080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No you're not alone.</p><p>It's basically the Uncanny Valley theory, applied to 3D animation instead.</p><p>A compelling movie doesn't *need* to be seen in 3D.  If it has a great plot, etc, then you'll enjoy it.  I don't think any amount of technology will ever change that.</p><p>Still, when this technology ultimately comes to research and games it will really change things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No you 're not alone.It 's basically the Uncanny Valley theory , applied to 3D animation instead.A compelling movie does n't * need * to be seen in 3D .
If it has a great plot , etc , then you 'll enjoy it .
I do n't think any amount of technology will ever change that.Still , when this technology ultimately comes to research and games it will really change things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No you're not alone.It's basically the Uncanny Valley theory, applied to 3D animation instead.A compelling movie doesn't *need* to be seen in 3D.
If it has a great plot, etc, then you'll enjoy it.
I don't think any amount of technology will ever change that.Still, when this technology ultimately comes to research and games it will really change things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724451</id>
	<title>Re:Profit</title>
	<author>gpronger</author>
	<datestamp>1247747280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But 10 years down the line, once porn has worked out the bugs, and made the market big enough to drive the cost of the hardware down, it'll become common technology. So, though porn may have a lot of negatives, it does tend to allow the development of technologies based upon what a lot of horny SOB's are willing to pay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But 10 years down the line , once porn has worked out the bugs , and made the market big enough to drive the cost of the hardware down , it 'll become common technology .
So , though porn may have a lot of negatives , it does tend to allow the development of technologies based upon what a lot of horny SOB 's are willing to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But 10 years down the line, once porn has worked out the bugs, and made the market big enough to drive the cost of the hardware down, it'll become common technology.
So, though porn may have a lot of negatives, it does tend to allow the development of technologies based upon what a lot of horny SOB's are willing to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724865</id>
	<title>tradition</title>
	<author>paimin</author>
	<datestamp>1247750460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the grand tradition of webcams, shouldn't the first 3D webcam have been a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan\_room\_coffee\_pot" title="wikipedia.org">static shot of a coffee maker</a> [wikipedia.org]?  I mean really.<br>
<br>
Bah.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the grand tradition of webcams , should n't the first 3D webcam have been a static shot of a coffee maker [ wikipedia.org ] ?
I mean really .
Bah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the grand tradition of webcams, shouldn't the first 3D webcam have been a static shot of a coffee maker [wikipedia.org]?
I mean really.
Bah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724719</id>
	<title>Re:Profit</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1247749260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quote from Avenue Q, "In volatile market, the only stable investment is porn."</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote from Avenue Q , " In volatile market , the only stable investment is porn .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote from Avenue Q, "In volatile market, the only stable investment is porn.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725295</id>
	<title>Re:3D Webcam</title>
	<author>iggymanz</author>
	<datestamp>1247754240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm holding out for a true 4D cam, with temporal persistence.  those 2 and 3D ones are here one instant and gone the next.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm holding out for a true 4D cam , with temporal persistence .
those 2 and 3D ones are here one instant and gone the next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm holding out for a true 4D cam, with temporal persistence.
those 2 and 3D ones are here one instant and gone the next.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724797</id>
	<title>Re:I used to be a big fan of 3-D...</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1247749800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't call any of the recent 3-D any more 3-D than original DOOM, I'd refer to it as 2.5-D. Just because the images come out of the screen isn't any different unless the entirety does, like a holograph.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't call any of the recent 3-D any more 3-D than original DOOM , I 'd refer to it as 2.5-D. Just because the images come out of the screen is n't any different unless the entirety does , like a holograph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't call any of the recent 3-D any more 3-D than original DOOM, I'd refer to it as 2.5-D. Just because the images come out of the screen isn't any different unless the entirety does, like a holograph.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28730017</id>
	<title>Re:colour blind</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1247846340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The image is filtered by the glasses, not your eyes.  Being color-blind may mean that you're not as annoyed when the colors don't look right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The image is filtered by the glasses , not your eyes .
Being color-blind may mean that you 're not as annoyed when the colors do n't look right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The image is filtered by the glasses, not your eyes.
Being color-blind may mean that you're not as annoyed when the colors don't look right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724597</id>
	<title>Is it just me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247748300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...thats looking for a video of that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...thats looking for a video of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...thats looking for a video of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725567</id>
	<title>I just imagine...</title>
	<author>hotfireball</author>
	<datestamp>1247757240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You also need a quadraphonic sound to make sure it is really 3D.</p><p>Then I just imagine videoconference: folks in these funky eyeglasses seeing each other, trying to recognize who is who and talking from where...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You also need a quadraphonic sound to make sure it is really 3D.Then I just imagine videoconference : folks in these funky eyeglasses seeing each other , trying to recognize who is who and talking from where.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You also need a quadraphonic sound to make sure it is really 3D.Then I just imagine videoconference: folks in these funky eyeglasses seeing each other, trying to recognize who is who and talking from where...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724377</id>
	<title>Re:Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247746740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These are already being used to make porn over at <a href="http://ifriendsv2.net/" title="ifriendsv2.net" rel="nofollow">http://ifriendsv2.net/</a> [ifriendsv2.net] (nws!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are already being used to make porn over at http : //ifriendsv2.net/ [ ifriendsv2.net ] ( nws !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are already being used to make porn over at http://ifriendsv2.net/ [ifriendsv2.net] (nws!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726101</id>
	<title>Re:Don't worry - you're not alone</title>
	<author>ikkonoishi</author>
	<datestamp>1247765220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can actually do that. Might be because at one point I took these classes that involved doing stereograms with increasing distance between the images to try and help my epilepsy or something.</p><p>Huh. I just found that I can move my eye's focus up and down individually (or at least reverse the movement for each eye).<br>I wonder if I could get my eyes to swivel around like The End...</p><p>I now have a migraine. Experiment aborted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can actually do that .
Might be because at one point I took these classes that involved doing stereograms with increasing distance between the images to try and help my epilepsy or something.Huh .
I just found that I can move my eye 's focus up and down individually ( or at least reverse the movement for each eye ) .I wonder if I could get my eyes to swivel around like The End...I now have a migraine .
Experiment aborted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can actually do that.
Might be because at one point I took these classes that involved doing stereograms with increasing distance between the images to try and help my epilepsy or something.Huh.
I just found that I can move my eye's focus up and down individually (or at least reverse the movement for each eye).I wonder if I could get my eyes to swivel around like The End...I now have a migraine.
Experiment aborted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726915</id>
	<title>colour blind</title>
	<author>Necroloth</author>
	<datestamp>1247864220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Out of curiosity, how does a colour-blind person view '3D' movies? Are the affected?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity , how does a colour-blind person view '3D ' movies ?
Are the affected ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of curiosity, how does a colour-blind person view '3D' movies?
Are the affected?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726377</id>
	<title>Re:Prepare for a run in display calibration tools</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1247768700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem with all 3d is that the lenses on the glasses must be calibrated to the colors on the display for optimal effect. For example if the images appear in the wrong shade of blue and red, you might begin to see both images in both eyes (no 3d).</p></div></blockquote><p>

The problem with red/blue glasses is you are sacrificing 2 dimensions to gain 1 back.  The ones you lose are two of the three dimensions in human visual color space; the one you gain is depth.  (Actually it seems wrong that you'd have to sacrifice 2 to get 1, maybe I am not thinking right.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with all 3d is that the lenses on the glasses must be calibrated to the colors on the display for optimal effect .
For example if the images appear in the wrong shade of blue and red , you might begin to see both images in both eyes ( no 3d ) .
The problem with red/blue glasses is you are sacrificing 2 dimensions to gain 1 back .
The ones you lose are two of the three dimensions in human visual color space ; the one you gain is depth .
( Actually it seems wrong that you 'd have to sacrifice 2 to get 1 , maybe I am not thinking right .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with all 3d is that the lenses on the glasses must be calibrated to the colors on the display for optimal effect.
For example if the images appear in the wrong shade of blue and red, you might begin to see both images in both eyes (no 3d).
The problem with red/blue glasses is you are sacrificing 2 dimensions to gain 1 back.
The ones you lose are two of the three dimensions in human visual color space; the one you gain is depth.
(Actually it seems wrong that you'd have to sacrifice 2 to get 1, maybe I am not thinking right.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724343</id>
	<title>Re:Possibilities For a couple of sex i though i</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247746560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ANALglyphics.... but then i saw the image, and i felt i wnet tghruo an aanl refragtometer. My sped is heel stinning..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ANALglyphics.... but then i saw the image , and i felt i wnet tghruo an aanl refragtometer .
My sped is heel stinning. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ANALglyphics.... but then i saw the image, and i felt i wnet tghruo an aanl refragtometer.
My sped is heel stinning..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726063</id>
	<title>Methinks</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1247764740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Big tits will become immensely popular.... again</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big tits will become immensely popular.... again</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big tits will become immensely popular.... again</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724389</id>
	<title>Re:Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247746920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724287</id>
	<title>Is it just me...</title>
	<author>QRDeNameland</author>
	<datestamp>1247746080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>..or does <a href="http://crave.cnet.co.uk/i/c/blg/cat/gadgets/minoru.jpg" title="cnet.co.uk">Minoru</a> [cnet.co.uk] look like the mutant love-child of Number 5 from Short Circuit and Stewie from Family Guy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>..or does Minoru [ cnet.co.uk ] look like the mutant love-child of Number 5 from Short Circuit and Stewie from Family Guy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..or does Minoru [cnet.co.uk] look like the mutant love-child of Number 5 from Short Circuit and Stewie from Family Guy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724093</id>
	<title>3D Webcam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247745060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally! My old, 2D webcam kept falling through the cracks in the floorboards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally !
My old , 2D webcam kept falling through the cracks in the floorboards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally!
My old, 2D webcam kept falling through the cracks in the floorboards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724463</id>
	<title>Instead of Hello, World!.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247747400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D video will use "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D video will use " Help me , Obi-Wan Kenobi " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D video will use "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724341</id>
	<title>Re:3D Webcam</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1247746560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't know about the rest of you, but I don't find anything 3D about additive red+blue channel images, and I find any advertisement of a "3D movie" annoying. Unless it's holo -- as seen on Star Trek viewscreens -- then that's not 3D, plain and simple. </p><p>And I also don't find anything innovative about this cam. How about "just" pairing two "regular" cams, and writing a virtual webcam driver that would merge the images into one? This Minoru is essentially the same thing, but packed in a &#194;&pound;49.95 plastic box, and thus I don't find this truly 'unique'; the box is unique, and Minoru is perhaps first implementation of this silly idea, but unique is a too strong word.</p><p>PS Slashdot, give us UTF-8.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know about the rest of you , but I do n't find anything 3D about additive red + blue channel images , and I find any advertisement of a " 3D movie " annoying .
Unless it 's holo -- as seen on Star Trek viewscreens -- then that 's not 3D , plain and simple .
And I also do n't find anything innovative about this cam .
How about " just " pairing two " regular " cams , and writing a virtual webcam driver that would merge the images into one ?
This Minoru is essentially the same thing , but packed in a     49.95 plastic box , and thus I do n't find this truly 'unique ' ; the box is unique , and Minoru is perhaps first implementation of this silly idea , but unique is a too strong word.PS Slashdot , give us UTF-8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know about the rest of you, but I don't find anything 3D about additive red+blue channel images, and I find any advertisement of a "3D movie" annoying.
Unless it's holo -- as seen on Star Trek viewscreens -- then that's not 3D, plain and simple.
And I also don't find anything innovative about this cam.
How about "just" pairing two "regular" cams, and writing a virtual webcam driver that would merge the images into one?
This Minoru is essentially the same thing, but packed in a Â£49.95 plastic box, and thus I don't find this truly 'unique'; the box is unique, and Minoru is perhaps first implementation of this silly idea, but unique is a too strong word.PS Slashdot, give us UTF-8.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28728521</id>
	<title>Useless for Business</title>
	<author>Serician</author>
	<datestamp>1247839800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All I can picture in my head is two executives on opposites sides of the world both looking like tools with coloured goggles on their heads - and having the whole thing on camera (I would "accidentally" record the video conference call).</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can picture in my head is two executives on opposites sides of the world both looking like tools with coloured goggles on their heads - and having the whole thing on camera ( I would " accidentally " record the video conference call ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can picture in my head is two executives on opposites sides of the world both looking like tools with coloured goggles on their heads - and having the whole thing on camera (I would "accidentally" record the video conference call).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724299</id>
	<title>Re:Prepare for a run in display calibration tools</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1247746140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem with all 3d is that the lenses on the glasses must be calibrated to the colors on the display</p></div></blockquote><p>Slow down, cowboy...</p><p>There's many ways in which you can present stereographic content.  Personally I prefer the side-by-side method as it allows for full color and no special display; and then specifically the cross-eyed method.  This does take up twice the horizontal space; though for most webcam purposes you could re-orient the camera so that it records in a portrait projection, and you'd lose much less (though requiring more vertically - unless cropped).</p><p>Other methods include things like chromadepth ( color matching doesn't matter there, but you have to pre-process the two images into a single image of varying hues so that e.g. red appears close and blue appears further away ), polarized display of both images into the same 2D space (requires special screen/projector and glasses), lenticular displays (both images appear interlaced vertically with eachother.. e.g. one image in the odd-numbered columns of pixels, the other in the even-numbered columns).. destroys half the horizontal resolution, requires a special display but not special glasses), '3d glasses' (a la VR shutter glasses, simply presenting the 'left' image in front of your left eye, and the right image in front of the right; requires special glasses, drivers, etc.).</p><p>Personally I don't know -why- this company went with the anaglyphic method as it's fraught with problems.. color filters are only the beginning... messing your eyes up like you wouldn't believe it for the next 5 minutes after you take the glasses off is a more serious issue.  At least shutter glasses only give you a headache, rather than the entire world appearing to fade between red/blue or red/green or cyan/magenta, etc. in front of you in swirly clouds of freakiness.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with all 3d is that the lenses on the glasses must be calibrated to the colors on the displaySlow down , cowboy...There 's many ways in which you can present stereographic content .
Personally I prefer the side-by-side method as it allows for full color and no special display ; and then specifically the cross-eyed method .
This does take up twice the horizontal space ; though for most webcam purposes you could re-orient the camera so that it records in a portrait projection , and you 'd lose much less ( though requiring more vertically - unless cropped ) .Other methods include things like chromadepth ( color matching does n't matter there , but you have to pre-process the two images into a single image of varying hues so that e.g .
red appears close and blue appears further away ) , polarized display of both images into the same 2D space ( requires special screen/projector and glasses ) , lenticular displays ( both images appear interlaced vertically with eachother.. e.g. one image in the odd-numbered columns of pixels , the other in the even-numbered columns ) .. destroys half the horizontal resolution , requires a special display but not special glasses ) , '3d glasses ' ( a la VR shutter glasses , simply presenting the 'left ' image in front of your left eye , and the right image in front of the right ; requires special glasses , drivers , etc .
) .Personally I do n't know -why- this company went with the anaglyphic method as it 's fraught with problems.. color filters are only the beginning... messing your eyes up like you would n't believe it for the next 5 minutes after you take the glasses off is a more serious issue .
At least shutter glasses only give you a headache , rather than the entire world appearing to fade between red/blue or red/green or cyan/magenta , etc .
in front of you in swirly clouds of freakiness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with all 3d is that the lenses on the glasses must be calibrated to the colors on the displaySlow down, cowboy...There's many ways in which you can present stereographic content.
Personally I prefer the side-by-side method as it allows for full color and no special display; and then specifically the cross-eyed method.
This does take up twice the horizontal space; though for most webcam purposes you could re-orient the camera so that it records in a portrait projection, and you'd lose much less (though requiring more vertically - unless cropped).Other methods include things like chromadepth ( color matching doesn't matter there, but you have to pre-process the two images into a single image of varying hues so that e.g.
red appears close and blue appears further away ), polarized display of both images into the same 2D space (requires special screen/projector and glasses), lenticular displays (both images appear interlaced vertically with eachother.. e.g. one image in the odd-numbered columns of pixels, the other in the even-numbered columns).. destroys half the horizontal resolution, requires a special display but not special glasses), '3d glasses' (a la VR shutter glasses, simply presenting the 'left' image in front of your left eye, and the right image in front of the right; requires special glasses, drivers, etc.
).Personally I don't know -why- this company went with the anaglyphic method as it's fraught with problems.. color filters are only the beginning... messing your eyes up like you wouldn't believe it for the next 5 minutes after you take the glasses off is a more serious issue.
At least shutter glasses only give you a headache, rather than the entire world appearing to fade between red/blue or red/green or cyan/magenta, etc.
in front of you in swirly clouds of freakiness.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725097</id>
	<title>3D?</title>
	<author>prndll</author>
	<datestamp>1247752440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess I just don't see the point in a "real" 3D camera when I can't view it's pictures on anything more than a 2D screen. Give me a "real" 3D screen to go with this and I might be impressed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I just do n't see the point in a " real " 3D camera when I ca n't view it 's pictures on anything more than a 2D screen .
Give me a " real " 3D screen to go with this and I might be impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I just don't see the point in a "real" 3D camera when I can't view it's pictures on anything more than a 2D screen.
Give me a "real" 3D screen to go with this and I might be impressed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28743825</id>
	<title>Re:Don't worry - you're not alone</title>
	<author>laddiebuck</author>
	<datestamp>1247915100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been trying to do this last thing a lot! You see, I have slight myopia, not enough to warrant contacts or glasses, and my vision is fine to pass the driving test in Washington state -- but I would like to be able to get full 20/20 at least when focussing on a specific object sometimes. I've long thought that this decoupling of focus and vergence is the answer, but I didn't know if it was possible. I occasionally practise, but without knowing that it's possible, I haven't been very regular about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been trying to do this last thing a lot !
You see , I have slight myopia , not enough to warrant contacts or glasses , and my vision is fine to pass the driving test in Washington state -- but I would like to be able to get full 20/20 at least when focussing on a specific object sometimes .
I 've long thought that this decoupling of focus and vergence is the answer , but I did n't know if it was possible .
I occasionally practise , but without knowing that it 's possible , I have n't been very regular about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been trying to do this last thing a lot!
You see, I have slight myopia, not enough to warrant contacts or glasses, and my vision is fine to pass the driving test in Washington state -- but I would like to be able to get full 20/20 at least when focussing on a specific object sometimes.
I've long thought that this decoupling of focus and vergence is the answer, but I didn't know if it was possible.
I occasionally practise, but without knowing that it's possible, I haven't been very regular about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725951</id>
	<title>Re:I used to be a big fan of 3-D...</title>
	<author>assassinator42</author>
	<datestamp>1247762880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate those 3D movies. Mainly because they look exactly the same as the 2D movies because I have amblyopia, but I have to wear the annoying glasses over my regular glasses. I went to see Up in 3D as everyone else I was going with wanted to. Last time I'm doing that, it takes a lot of the enjoyment out of the movie. I remember hearing these 3D TV shows being advertised as a kid and being confused as I thought everything was already in 3D.<br>
The local theater scheduled significantly more showings of the 3D version. I'm hoping the trend does not continue, so I can actually go watch and enjoy these movies with people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate those 3D movies .
Mainly because they look exactly the same as the 2D movies because I have amblyopia , but I have to wear the annoying glasses over my regular glasses .
I went to see Up in 3D as everyone else I was going with wanted to .
Last time I 'm doing that , it takes a lot of the enjoyment out of the movie .
I remember hearing these 3D TV shows being advertised as a kid and being confused as I thought everything was already in 3D .
The local theater scheduled significantly more showings of the 3D version .
I 'm hoping the trend does not continue , so I can actually go watch and enjoy these movies with people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate those 3D movies.
Mainly because they look exactly the same as the 2D movies because I have amblyopia, but I have to wear the annoying glasses over my regular glasses.
I went to see Up in 3D as everyone else I was going with wanted to.
Last time I'm doing that, it takes a lot of the enjoyment out of the movie.
I remember hearing these 3D TV shows being advertised as a kid and being confused as I thought everything was already in 3D.
The local theater scheduled significantly more showings of the 3D version.
I'm hoping the trend does not continue, so I can actually go watch and enjoy these movies with people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724257</id>
	<title>This will fail at videoconferencing.</title>
	<author>Spy der Mann</author>
	<datestamp>1247745960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because everyone will have to be using 3d glasses.</p><p>Unless you make the 3d glasses somewhat invisible to the 3D camera and... ow my head!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because everyone will have to be using 3d glasses.Unless you make the 3d glasses somewhat invisible to the 3D camera and... ow my head !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because everyone will have to be using 3d glasses.Unless you make the 3d glasses somewhat invisible to the 3D camera and... ow my head!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724383</id>
	<title>I used to be a big fan of 3-D...</title>
	<author>FlyingSquidStudios</author>
	<datestamp>1247746800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then they started putting out all these animated films in 3-D- Robots, Beowulf, Up, etc. And I kept paying the extra to see the 3-D versions. Something kept bothering me though. Then, in the middle of Up, I realized what it was: after about 10 minutes, I stopped noticing that it was 3-D at all. I mean, if you get really absorbed in a movie, you don't need it to be 3-D anyway... and frankly, 3-D images never look three dimensional like they do in the real world. They have an otherworldly quality that seems, at least to me, in some ways less natural than 2-D images. Maybe it's that they don't define the subtleties of the true three dimensional world well enough, I don't know. Half the time it almost seems like I'm looking at one of those paper cut-out toy theatres where there's several levels of depth, but everything on each level is flat and it's only the levels themselves that are spaced apart. Am I the only one who feels this way?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then they started putting out all these animated films in 3-D- Robots , Beowulf , Up , etc .
And I kept paying the extra to see the 3-D versions .
Something kept bothering me though .
Then , in the middle of Up , I realized what it was : after about 10 minutes , I stopped noticing that it was 3-D at all .
I mean , if you get really absorbed in a movie , you do n't need it to be 3-D anyway... and frankly , 3-D images never look three dimensional like they do in the real world .
They have an otherworldly quality that seems , at least to me , in some ways less natural than 2-D images .
Maybe it 's that they do n't define the subtleties of the true three dimensional world well enough , I do n't know .
Half the time it almost seems like I 'm looking at one of those paper cut-out toy theatres where there 's several levels of depth , but everything on each level is flat and it 's only the levels themselves that are spaced apart .
Am I the only one who feels this way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then they started putting out all these animated films in 3-D- Robots, Beowulf, Up, etc.
And I kept paying the extra to see the 3-D versions.
Something kept bothering me though.
Then, in the middle of Up, I realized what it was: after about 10 minutes, I stopped noticing that it was 3-D at all.
I mean, if you get really absorbed in a movie, you don't need it to be 3-D anyway... and frankly, 3-D images never look three dimensional like they do in the real world.
They have an otherworldly quality that seems, at least to me, in some ways less natural than 2-D images.
Maybe it's that they don't define the subtleties of the true three dimensional world well enough, I don't know.
Half the time it almost seems like I'm looking at one of those paper cut-out toy theatres where there's several levels of depth, but everything on each level is flat and it's only the levels themselves that are spaced apart.
Am I the only one who feels this way?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724481</id>
	<title>already in the wild</title>
	<author>timmyd</author>
	<datestamp>1247747460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LiveJasmin has had 3D cameras for a few months now. (http://www.livejasmin.com/listpage.php?tags=girl+3dcam&amp;type=40) [NSFW]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LiveJasmin has had 3D cameras for a few months now .
( http : //www.livejasmin.com/listpage.php ? tags = girl + 3dcam&amp;type = 40 ) [ NSFW ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LiveJasmin has had 3D cameras for a few months now.
(http://www.livejasmin.com/listpage.php?tags=girl+3dcam&amp;type=40) [NSFW]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725577</id>
	<title>Re:Really? This is the world's first?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1247757300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Am I missing something, or is this just two ordinary webcams that superimpose their images onto one another? Why did it take so long for someone to duct tape 2 cameras together?</i></p><p>You missed something: the marketing hype. No it didn't take this long to do stereographic video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I missing something , or is this just two ordinary webcams that superimpose their images onto one another ?
Why did it take so long for someone to duct tape 2 cameras together ? You missed something : the marketing hype .
No it did n't take this long to do stereographic video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I missing something, or is this just two ordinary webcams that superimpose their images onto one another?
Why did it take so long for someone to duct tape 2 cameras together?You missed something: the marketing hype.
No it didn't take this long to do stereographic video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28742309</id>
	<title>Re:Hot damn!</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1247944800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, although that post was crude, it is not entirely off topic.  My first thought when I read the headline was, "Now your 14-year-old daughter's 19-year-old boyfriend can feel like he's really there when she sends him a video of her stripping and...."  Maybe I just have too little faith in humanity....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , although that post was crude , it is not entirely off topic .
My first thought when I read the headline was , " Now your 14-year-old daughter 's 19-year-old boyfriend can feel like he 's really there when she sends him a video of her stripping and.... " Maybe I just have too little faith in humanity... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, although that post was crude, it is not entirely off topic.
My first thought when I read the headline was, "Now your 14-year-old daughter's 19-year-old boyfriend can feel like he's really there when she sends him a video of her stripping and...."  Maybe I just have too little faith in humanity....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724485</id>
	<title>The demo sucked</title>
	<author>Big Smirk</author>
	<datestamp>1247747460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least when converted to youtube the red and blue image wasn't even in-sync.</p><p>Perhaps a whole new compression algorithm.</p><p>The problem is the human senses are very sensitive to subtle changes - everything from phase changes in audio to things like  frame sync.  The original full motion simulator guys figured it out when they missed the motion tracking to video image by a frame or two - everyone got sick.  Instant sea sickness.</p><p>All in all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least when converted to youtube the red and blue image was n't even in-sync.Perhaps a whole new compression algorithm.The problem is the human senses are very sensitive to subtle changes - everything from phase changes in audio to things like frame sync .
The original full motion simulator guys figured it out when they missed the motion tracking to video image by a frame or two - everyone got sick .
Instant sea sickness.All in all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least when converted to youtube the red and blue image wasn't even in-sync.Perhaps a whole new compression algorithm.The problem is the human senses are very sensitive to subtle changes - everything from phase changes in audio to things like  frame sync.
The original full motion simulator guys figured it out when they missed the motion tracking to video image by a frame or two - everyone got sick.
Instant sea sickness.All in all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726593</id>
	<title>Re:Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally! We have located the missing step leading to profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally !
We have located the missing step leading to profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally!
We have located the missing step leading to profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725497</id>
	<title>FASILZORS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">fly...don't fear every day...Like Raise or lower the these chall3nges Else up their asses niggerness?  And go of the minutiae recent Sys Admin</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>fly...do n't fear every day...Like Raise or lower the these chall3nges Else up their asses niggerness ?
And go of the minutiae recent Sys Admin [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fly...don't fear every day...Like Raise or lower the these chall3nges Else up their asses niggerness?
And go of the minutiae recent Sys Admin [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724617</id>
	<title>Don't worry - you're not alone</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1247748420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's several reasons why you may not find them all that '3D'...</p><p>starting with the obvious: it's not 3D, it's stereographic.  We still call that '3D' because you get depth cues from it and depth would be the third dimension.</p><p>also obvious: when you move your head, the perspective doesn't change.  For 2D, your brain doesn't care so much* as it's been trained in seeing 2D images since you were born.  Stereographic images however do fool your brain into getting a depth cue, and it assumes that because it gets depth cues, you should be able to get a different perspective by moving your head. This confusion fades after a short while (depends on the person), but it'll always be there.  The worst thing is.. your eyes jitter, even if you keep your head perfectly still, your eyes will still be bouncing all over the place - with minute movements, but your brain still expects the minute differences in perspective it's used to from actual 3D environments.</p><p>less obvious: you get depth cues of, say, an object being up close... something silly like the sword in Beowulf... right at you through the screen.  You look at it, essentially crossing your eyes a little like you would any object that gets closer to you.. but now something funny happens.  Your eyes, when they cross, by virtue of the brain will try to focus at a depth of the intersection point of your two eyes*.  However, the film is not -actually- 3D.. so you're at the mercy of whatever focus the film's producer decided upon.  So if that tip of the sword is squarely out of focus, your brain sits there wondering what the $&amp;#* is going on.  This effect is not so pronounced for surfaces further away (much like a focal distance on your camera of 15m will happily cover 14m and 16m as well, and far beyond those; while a macro shot at 2cm distance requires very careful positioning of your camera's distance to the subject to get the correct part in focus... e.g. photographing an insect and trying to get its head, rather than some leg in focus) - but at the same time, depth cues get much less pronounced as surfaces get further away - simply as they converge with perspective.</p><p>There's a few other reasons, including keystoning of the projection (when seeing a stereographic 3D feature, try to sit as close to the center of the screen when projected out to the seating as possible), but the above are the main three.</p><p>It bugs me as well, but for some movies it's absolutely worth seeing the '3D' version.</p><p>* This is also the main reason why some people have issues trying to see side-by-side type stereographic images.  Getting your eyes to see a surface at one distance (depending on how much you have to cross your eyes to make the two images overlap), while the lenses of each eye focus on another distance (the display surface) can be unnatural and some people simply never get it happening for them.</p><p>For kicks.. close your left eye, now with your right eye, try to focus on a nearer distance (without cheating using another surface).  Do the same with the right eye closed and left eye open.  If you can do this, you can probably watch side-by-side stereographic images (of the cross-eye method) easily.<br>Now for your brain kicking in.. open both eyes,  and try again.  You'll find this difficult at best and impossible at worst - without, in fact, going cross-eyed.</p><p>Human visual system is fun - and that's without going into any optical illusion stuff<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's several reasons why you may not find them all that '3D'...starting with the obvious : it 's not 3D , it 's stereographic .
We still call that '3D ' because you get depth cues from it and depth would be the third dimension.also obvious : when you move your head , the perspective does n't change .
For 2D , your brain does n't care so much * as it 's been trained in seeing 2D images since you were born .
Stereographic images however do fool your brain into getting a depth cue , and it assumes that because it gets depth cues , you should be able to get a different perspective by moving your head .
This confusion fades after a short while ( depends on the person ) , but it 'll always be there .
The worst thing is.. your eyes jitter , even if you keep your head perfectly still , your eyes will still be bouncing all over the place - with minute movements , but your brain still expects the minute differences in perspective it 's used to from actual 3D environments.less obvious : you get depth cues of , say , an object being up close... something silly like the sword in Beowulf... right at you through the screen .
You look at it , essentially crossing your eyes a little like you would any object that gets closer to you.. but now something funny happens .
Your eyes , when they cross , by virtue of the brain will try to focus at a depth of the intersection point of your two eyes * .
However , the film is not -actually- 3D.. so you 're at the mercy of whatever focus the film 's producer decided upon .
So if that tip of the sword is squarely out of focus , your brain sits there wondering what the $ &amp; # * is going on .
This effect is not so pronounced for surfaces further away ( much like a focal distance on your camera of 15m will happily cover 14m and 16m as well , and far beyond those ; while a macro shot at 2cm distance requires very careful positioning of your camera 's distance to the subject to get the correct part in focus... e.g. photographing an insect and trying to get its head , rather than some leg in focus ) - but at the same time , depth cues get much less pronounced as surfaces get further away - simply as they converge with perspective.There 's a few other reasons , including keystoning of the projection ( when seeing a stereographic 3D feature , try to sit as close to the center of the screen when projected out to the seating as possible ) , but the above are the main three.It bugs me as well , but for some movies it 's absolutely worth seeing the '3D ' version .
* This is also the main reason why some people have issues trying to see side-by-side type stereographic images .
Getting your eyes to see a surface at one distance ( depending on how much you have to cross your eyes to make the two images overlap ) , while the lenses of each eye focus on another distance ( the display surface ) can be unnatural and some people simply never get it happening for them.For kicks.. close your left eye , now with your right eye , try to focus on a nearer distance ( without cheating using another surface ) .
Do the same with the right eye closed and left eye open .
If you can do this , you can probably watch side-by-side stereographic images ( of the cross-eye method ) easily.Now for your brain kicking in.. open both eyes , and try again .
You 'll find this difficult at best and impossible at worst - without , in fact , going cross-eyed.Human visual system is fun - and that 's without going into any optical illusion stuff : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's several reasons why you may not find them all that '3D'...starting with the obvious: it's not 3D, it's stereographic.
We still call that '3D' because you get depth cues from it and depth would be the third dimension.also obvious: when you move your head, the perspective doesn't change.
For 2D, your brain doesn't care so much* as it's been trained in seeing 2D images since you were born.
Stereographic images however do fool your brain into getting a depth cue, and it assumes that because it gets depth cues, you should be able to get a different perspective by moving your head.
This confusion fades after a short while (depends on the person), but it'll always be there.
The worst thing is.. your eyes jitter, even if you keep your head perfectly still, your eyes will still be bouncing all over the place - with minute movements, but your brain still expects the minute differences in perspective it's used to from actual 3D environments.less obvious: you get depth cues of, say, an object being up close... something silly like the sword in Beowulf... right at you through the screen.
You look at it, essentially crossing your eyes a little like you would any object that gets closer to you.. but now something funny happens.
Your eyes, when they cross, by virtue of the brain will try to focus at a depth of the intersection point of your two eyes*.
However, the film is not -actually- 3D.. so you're at the mercy of whatever focus the film's producer decided upon.
So if that tip of the sword is squarely out of focus, your brain sits there wondering what the $&amp;#* is going on.
This effect is not so pronounced for surfaces further away (much like a focal distance on your camera of 15m will happily cover 14m and 16m as well, and far beyond those; while a macro shot at 2cm distance requires very careful positioning of your camera's distance to the subject to get the correct part in focus... e.g. photographing an insect and trying to get its head, rather than some leg in focus) - but at the same time, depth cues get much less pronounced as surfaces get further away - simply as they converge with perspective.There's a few other reasons, including keystoning of the projection (when seeing a stereographic 3D feature, try to sit as close to the center of the screen when projected out to the seating as possible), but the above are the main three.It bugs me as well, but for some movies it's absolutely worth seeing the '3D' version.
* This is also the main reason why some people have issues trying to see side-by-side type stereographic images.
Getting your eyes to see a surface at one distance (depending on how much you have to cross your eyes to make the two images overlap), while the lenses of each eye focus on another distance (the display surface) can be unnatural and some people simply never get it happening for them.For kicks.. close your left eye, now with your right eye, try to focus on a nearer distance (without cheating using another surface).
Do the same with the right eye closed and left eye open.
If you can do this, you can probably watch side-by-side stereographic images (of the cross-eye method) easily.Now for your brain kicking in.. open both eyes,  and try again.
You'll find this difficult at best and impossible at worst - without, in fact, going cross-eyed.Human visual system is fun - and that's without going into any optical illusion stuff :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725479</id>
	<title>Re:This will fail at videoconferencing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And really though, who wants to go through the trouble of even picking up a pair of glasses to talk over the internet? Oh right, the same people who actually use the video chat feature on skype when they're not actually showing you anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And really though , who wants to go through the trouble of even picking up a pair of glasses to talk over the internet ?
Oh right , the same people who actually use the video chat feature on skype when they 're not actually showing you anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And really though, who wants to go through the trouble of even picking up a pair of glasses to talk over the internet?
Oh right, the same people who actually use the video chat feature on skype when they're not actually showing you anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28729661</id>
	<title>Re:3D Webcam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247844900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D movies shown in the theater use polarized glasses, not red and blue.  But I believe your point about it not actually being 3D is still valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D movies shown in the theater use polarized glasses , not red and blue .
But I believe your point about it not actually being 3D is still valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D movies shown in the theater use polarized glasses, not red and blue.
But I believe your point about it not actually being 3D is still valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726499</id>
	<title>Linux and OSX?</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1247770920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long must I wait for OSX or Linux drivers for this thing? Should I just give up and make my own V4L filter that can color shift and merge two webcams into one? (should be easy, but do I want to glue to cameras together that badly)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long must I wait for OSX or Linux drivers for this thing ?
Should I just give up and make my own V4L filter that can color shift and merge two webcams into one ?
( should be easy , but do I want to glue to cameras together that badly )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long must I wait for OSX or Linux drivers for this thing?
Should I just give up and make my own V4L filter that can color shift and merge two webcams into one?
(should be easy, but do I want to glue to cameras together that badly)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724219</id>
	<title>Prepare for a run in display calibration tools</title>
	<author>jhfry</author>
	<datestamp>1247745600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with all 3d is that the lenses on the glasses must be calibrated to the colors on the display for optimal effect.  For example if the images appear in the wrong shade of blue and red, you might begin to see both images in both eyes (no 3d).</p><p>With a properly calibrated display and some good quality glasses I'd bet the effect is quite good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with all 3d is that the lenses on the glasses must be calibrated to the colors on the display for optimal effect .
For example if the images appear in the wrong shade of blue and red , you might begin to see both images in both eyes ( no 3d ) .With a properly calibrated display and some good quality glasses I 'd bet the effect is quite good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with all 3d is that the lenses on the glasses must be calibrated to the colors on the display for optimal effect.
For example if the images appear in the wrong shade of blue and red, you might begin to see both images in both eyes (no 3d).With a properly calibrated display and some good quality glasses I'd bet the effect is quite good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724503</id>
	<title>Re:I used to be a big fan of 3-D...</title>
	<author>nextekcarl</author>
	<datestamp>1247747580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I agree with you. While I sort of like the 3D movies, I find myself removing the glasses frequently for two reasons. One, is the one you mentioned. The other is for some reason, my eyes water when I watch these movies. Instantly, as soon as the 3D actually starts, my eyes water. The first time I thought it was my allergies, but the next time we watched two movies back to back, and the first wasn't 3D, and my eyes were fine. As soon as we went into the second theater and I put the glasses on my eyes started watering. I think they must be straining or something, because I've seen a couple more and the same thing always happens to me. My wife doesn't notice anything when she watches, so it seems to just be me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I agree with you .
While I sort of like the 3D movies , I find myself removing the glasses frequently for two reasons .
One , is the one you mentioned .
The other is for some reason , my eyes water when I watch these movies .
Instantly , as soon as the 3D actually starts , my eyes water .
The first time I thought it was my allergies , but the next time we watched two movies back to back , and the first was n't 3D , and my eyes were fine .
As soon as we went into the second theater and I put the glasses on my eyes started watering .
I think they must be straining or something , because I 've seen a couple more and the same thing always happens to me .
My wife does n't notice anything when she watches , so it seems to just be me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I agree with you.
While I sort of like the 3D movies, I find myself removing the glasses frequently for two reasons.
One, is the one you mentioned.
The other is for some reason, my eyes water when I watch these movies.
Instantly, as soon as the 3D actually starts, my eyes water.
The first time I thought it was my allergies, but the next time we watched two movies back to back, and the first wasn't 3D, and my eyes were fine.
As soon as we went into the second theater and I put the glasses on my eyes started watering.
I think they must be straining or something, because I've seen a couple more and the same thing always happens to me.
My wife doesn't notice anything when she watches, so it seems to just be me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28730851</id>
	<title>Re:Really? This is the world's first?</title>
	<author>mzs</author>
	<datestamp>1247849700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought I had heard about a technique where a single camera could use rapidly changing the focal length to produce an image with depth information. The rationale I think was for removing the looking into the screen not the camera aspect of web cams. Does anyone remember anything about that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought I had heard about a technique where a single camera could use rapidly changing the focal length to produce an image with depth information .
The rationale I think was for removing the looking into the screen not the camera aspect of web cams .
Does anyone remember anything about that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought I had heard about a technique where a single camera could use rapidly changing the focal length to produce an image with depth information.
The rationale I think was for removing the looking into the screen not the camera aspect of web cams.
Does anyone remember anything about that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724183</id>
	<title>Possibilities</title>
	<author>theArtificial</author>
	<datestamp>1247745360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amateur pornographers of the world rejoice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amateur pornographers of the world rejoice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amateur pornographers of the world rejoice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724129</id>
	<title>Hot damn!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247745180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724227</id>
	<title>Motion not a strong point</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1247745660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just tried this with some old 3d glasses I had laying around and it looks like the cameras get out of sync when it moves around.

Especially when the camera swings over people, you see those ghost images of the person in one eye.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just tried this with some old 3d glasses I had laying around and it looks like the cameras get out of sync when it moves around .
Especially when the camera swings over people , you see those ghost images of the person in one eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just tried this with some old 3d glasses I had laying around and it looks like the cameras get out of sync when it moves around.
Especially when the camera swings over people, you see those ghost images of the person in one eye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724697</id>
	<title>Re:3D Webcam</title>
	<author>Vectronic</author>
	<datestamp>1247749020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1, especially since you have to wear the stupid glasses anyways, why not just pair 2 normal cams (ooh challenging), and have your main product being special glasses with a screen in each 'lens', then the glasses have a focus setting, which sends back to the webcams to change their focal point. Or get a little more complex and have the glasses monitor the viewers eyes, and interpret the desired focal distance and angle by that, then you could actually "look around" as if you were there, (having the ability disabled on the webcams side incase you don't want people looking around the room)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 , especially since you have to wear the stupid glasses anyways , why not just pair 2 normal cams ( ooh challenging ) , and have your main product being special glasses with a screen in each 'lens ' , then the glasses have a focus setting , which sends back to the webcams to change their focal point .
Or get a little more complex and have the glasses monitor the viewers eyes , and interpret the desired focal distance and angle by that , then you could actually " look around " as if you were there , ( having the ability disabled on the webcams side incase you do n't want people looking around the room )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1, especially since you have to wear the stupid glasses anyways, why not just pair 2 normal cams (ooh challenging), and have your main product being special glasses with a screen in each 'lens', then the glasses have a focus setting, which sends back to the webcams to change their focal point.
Or get a little more complex and have the glasses monitor the viewers eyes, and interpret the desired focal distance and angle by that, then you could actually "look around" as if you were there, (having the ability disabled on the webcams side incase you don't want people looking around the room)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724403</id>
	<title>Moving Forward?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247746920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For more than 50 years we have been experiencing these "advances" in 3D technology. But, even after 50 years, the end result, the viewed image, still looks the same. Awful!</p><p>This camera, isn't even remotely usable in the real world. Even for porn. It sucks!</p><p>My real question is, why don't they just give up on this 3D crap already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For more than 50 years we have been experiencing these " advances " in 3D technology .
But , even after 50 years , the end result , the viewed image , still looks the same .
Awful ! This camera , is n't even remotely usable in the real world .
Even for porn .
It sucks ! My real question is , why do n't they just give up on this 3D crap already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For more than 50 years we have been experiencing these "advances" in 3D technology.
But, even after 50 years, the end result, the viewed image, still looks the same.
Awful!This camera, isn't even remotely usable in the real world.
Even for porn.
It sucks!My real question is, why don't they just give up on this 3D crap already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725153</id>
	<title>Re:Is it just me...</title>
	<author>EdIII</author>
	<datestamp>1247752980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man that is one home video of the honeymoon night I *don't* want to see.................</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man that is one home video of the honeymoon night I * do n't * want to see................ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man that is one home video of the honeymoon night I *don't* want to see.................</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726093</id>
	<title>The demo video does it wrong</title>
	<author>DaleGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1247765100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anaglyph stereo requires two <b>different</b> images. These are taking two identical ones and shifting  one of them a bit to one side. This does not work.</p><p>For instance, in the video, look at the table's border. You'll see how the red border is the same thickness, from the part that's closest to the viewer to the part that is furthest.</p><p>Compare this with an image that <a href="http://www.mtbs3d.com/gallery/albums/mtbsguide/normal\_DepthPopOutMix.jpg" title="mtbs3d.com">does it right</a> [mtbs3d.com]. Notice how the difference between the left and right eye changes depending on distance. You can clearly see in the stairs how the red and cyan channels get closer to each other with distance, join, then start separating. That's how it's supposed to look like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anaglyph stereo requires two different images .
These are taking two identical ones and shifting one of them a bit to one side .
This does not work.For instance , in the video , look at the table 's border .
You 'll see how the red border is the same thickness , from the part that 's closest to the viewer to the part that is furthest.Compare this with an image that does it right [ mtbs3d.com ] .
Notice how the difference between the left and right eye changes depending on distance .
You can clearly see in the stairs how the red and cyan channels get closer to each other with distance , join , then start separating .
That 's how it 's supposed to look like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anaglyph stereo requires two different images.
These are taking two identical ones and shifting  one of them a bit to one side.
This does not work.For instance, in the video, look at the table's border.
You'll see how the red border is the same thickness, from the part that's closest to the viewer to the part that is furthest.Compare this with an image that does it right [mtbs3d.com].
Notice how the difference between the left and right eye changes depending on distance.
You can clearly see in the stairs how the red and cyan channels get closer to each other with distance, join, then start separating.
That's how it's supposed to look like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28729173</id>
	<title>Re:Really? This is the world's first?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247842800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh, and that girl still looks flat.</p></div><p>Why must it always devolved into talking about breasts??!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , and that girl still looks flat.Why must it always devolved into talking about breasts ? ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, and that girl still looks flat.Why must it always devolved into talking about breasts??
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726395</id>
	<title>Binocular Vision overrated?</title>
	<author>JoeSilva</author>
	<datestamp>1247769000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabismus" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Strabismus</a> [wikipedia.org] (wall eyed version) my whole life. Maybe I'm missing something (you insensitive clod) but I get the impression this 3D Imagery stuff is just a gimmick, as I seem to do just fine judging distance without it. Still it probably gave a survival advantage at one time else why bother? Maybe it was just advantages to have a backup eye and the binocular ability came along from that, anyone know of research on that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had Strabismus [ wikipedia.org ] ( wall eyed version ) my whole life .
Maybe I 'm missing something ( you insensitive clod ) but I get the impression this 3D Imagery stuff is just a gimmick , as I seem to do just fine judging distance without it .
Still it probably gave a survival advantage at one time else why bother ?
Maybe it was just advantages to have a backup eye and the binocular ability came along from that , anyone know of research on that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had Strabismus [wikipedia.org] (wall eyed version) my whole life.
Maybe I'm missing something (you insensitive clod) but I get the impression this 3D Imagery stuff is just a gimmick, as I seem to do just fine judging distance without it.
Still it probably gave a survival advantage at one time else why bother?
Maybe it was just advantages to have a backup eye and the binocular ability came along from that, anyone know of research on that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725895</id>
	<title>Why use it for 3D?</title>
	<author>FirstTimeCaller</author>
	<datestamp>1247762460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Using it to produce 3D video seems gimmicky and, as someone pointed out, who wants to look at everybody wearing 3D glasses?  I think a better use would be to use the two cameras to allow calculation of distances and then replace everything beyond a certain distance.  Sort of a green screen effect but without the green screen.  Now that would be useful (and cool).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using it to produce 3D video seems gimmicky and , as someone pointed out , who wants to look at everybody wearing 3D glasses ?
I think a better use would be to use the two cameras to allow calculation of distances and then replace everything beyond a certain distance .
Sort of a green screen effect but without the green screen .
Now that would be useful ( and cool ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using it to produce 3D video seems gimmicky and, as someone pointed out, who wants to look at everybody wearing 3D glasses?
I think a better use would be to use the two cameras to allow calculation of distances and then replace everything beyond a certain distance.
Sort of a green screen effect but without the green screen.
Now that would be useful (and cool).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724191</id>
	<title>Profit</title>
	<author>matchlight</author>
	<datestamp>1247745420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Step 1: build something<br>
Step 2: Figure out how to use it to make porn<br>
Step 3: make porn<br>
Step 4: Profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : build something Step 2 : Figure out how to use it to make porn Step 3 : make porn Step 4 : Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1: build something
Step 2: Figure out how to use it to make porn
Step 3: make porn
Step 4: Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725671</id>
	<title>I had my Livecam product doing this in 1996!</title>
	<author>John Sokol</author>
	<datestamp>1247760000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; I had my Livecam product doing this in 1996! www.livecamserver.com</p><p>Stereo video is nothing new, and anaglyphic video is terrible.</p><p>There are some excellent stereo video codecs that have been developed over the years, I even experimented with a few designs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  I had my Livecam product doing this in 1996 !
www.livecamserver.comStereo video is nothing new , and anaglyphic video is terrible.There are some excellent stereo video codecs that have been developed over the years , I even experimented with a few designs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  I had my Livecam product doing this in 1996!
www.livecamserver.comStereo video is nothing new, and anaglyphic video is terrible.There are some excellent stereo video codecs that have been developed over the years, I even experimented with a few designs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726207</id>
	<title>Re:3D Webcam</title>
	<author>Jake73</author>
	<datestamp>1247766540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, you cannot do 3D anaglyphics with a rolling shutter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , you can not do 3D anaglyphics with a rolling shutter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, you cannot do 3D anaglyphics with a rolling shutter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28727453</id>
	<title>3D HOMEMADE PORN IS HERE!!!!!</title>
	<author>fitash</author>
	<datestamp>1247829240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a nasty girl, do you want to see my 3D tits?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a nasty girl , do you want to see my 3D tits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a nasty girl, do you want to see my 3D tits?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724919</id>
	<title>Re:Really? This is the world's first?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1247750820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is in no way the first.</p><p>My University has had a room set up for 3D videoconferencing for over 5 years.</p><p>We haven't actually put the pieces together in a way that could be called videoconferencing, but we have a pair of projectors with polarized filters and a pair of cameras bolted together that we take 3D video with and roll out when we need something to show off to parents, prospective students, donors, etc.</p><p>Of course, figuring out the right way to put the two images together usually requires a bit of editing, but that's a question of software, not hardware. If they have a really good system for automatically calibrating the cameras and displays, that might be interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is in no way the first.My University has had a room set up for 3D videoconferencing for over 5 years.We have n't actually put the pieces together in a way that could be called videoconferencing , but we have a pair of projectors with polarized filters and a pair of cameras bolted together that we take 3D video with and roll out when we need something to show off to parents , prospective students , donors , etc.Of course , figuring out the right way to put the two images together usually requires a bit of editing , but that 's a question of software , not hardware .
If they have a really good system for automatically calibrating the cameras and displays , that might be interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is in no way the first.My University has had a room set up for 3D videoconferencing for over 5 years.We haven't actually put the pieces together in a way that could be called videoconferencing, but we have a pair of projectors with polarized filters and a pair of cameras bolted together that we take 3D video with and roll out when we need something to show off to parents, prospective students, donors, etc.Of course, figuring out the right way to put the two images together usually requires a bit of editing, but that's a question of software, not hardware.
If they have a really good system for automatically calibrating the cameras and displays, that might be interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724973</id>
	<title>Re:Really? This is the world's first?</title>
	<author>EkriirkE</author>
	<datestamp>1247751420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, you got it.  I happen to have red/cyan glasses on my desk and it seems the two cameras aren't even in sync (noticed when panning)
<br> <br>
Oh, and that girl still looks flat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you got it .
I happen to have red/cyan glasses on my desk and it seems the two cameras are n't even in sync ( noticed when panning ) Oh , and that girl still looks flat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you got it.
I happen to have red/cyan glasses on my desk and it seems the two cameras aren't even in sync (noticed when panning)
 
Oh, and that girl still looks flat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724495</id>
	<title>Really? This is the world's first?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247747520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I missing something, or is this just two ordinary webcams that superimpose their images onto one another? Why did it take so long for someone to duct tape 2 cameras together?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I missing something , or is this just two ordinary webcams that superimpose their images onto one another ?
Why did it take so long for someone to duct tape 2 cameras together ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I missing something, or is this just two ordinary webcams that superimpose their images onto one another?
Why did it take so long for someone to duct tape 2 cameras together?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28729173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28743825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28742309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28730017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28729661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28730851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2213224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28729661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725479
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724617
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28743825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724343
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28742309
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724227
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28730017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725461
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2213224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28730851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28725577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28724973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28729173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2213224.28726691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
