pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 3d Photography  (Read 7229 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 27, 2011, 11:06 »
0
Hi Guys,

What do you think?  The new Lytro camera is able to take 3d images. They've invented new microscopes able to photograph 3d bacteria.  Many gamer machines are 3d ready. Are we now at the start of the 3d age?

This is speculation but technology moves fast, and if it's already in the consumer market - does that mean the clock is ticking on our 2d images?

Does a 3d image agency exist? Anybody here already using this technology?

Interesting tho. I wonder what will happen to the value of our 2d ports...


« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2011, 11:30 »
0
This blog post http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html written by Roger Ebert pretty much sums up what I think about 3D. Of course it's only about film/movies, but some of it applies even still images.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2011, 11:59 »
0
It's a long way before all media - especially in print - will be in 3D. Apart from some holography, paper is still 2D. And so are most of current LCD screens. I wouldn't worry too much right now for the value of our ports.

By the way, I don't like 3D movies. And I don't even like 5.1 sound: at least for music listening, I stick to the good old stereo. 3D is just a technological curiosity for me, not a much needed improvement.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 12:28 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2011, 12:34 »
0
Interesting tho. I wonder what will happen to the value of our 2d ports...

I think if this makes an impact (versus becomes another Foveon sensor), it will be over a long-ish period of time. (Most of) Your port will probably decline in value with time anyway, so I don't think it will have an impact on that one way or the other.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2011, 14:10 »
0
important to distinguish between 3D renders and what we're talking about here. I love good 3D renders....but personally, I hate 3D movies and television. I don't see the point.

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2011, 15:51 »
0
Put on your glasses  :D


RacePhoto

« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2011, 01:18 »
0
This blog post http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html written by Roger Ebert pretty much sums up what I think about 3D. Of course it's only about film/movies, but some of it applies even still images.


Yeah I'm with you and them and everyone else who says, it's a novelty more than a serious long lasting technology. Now most people here didn't get to watch the 3D of the 50s with blue and red glasses. It was nice for comic books but for movies, it came and went. Then there have been all kinds of stereoscopes, including the White cameras, which on a good day, were fun. Really Viewmasters made the biggest impact?

Nimslo and the sliced image with prismatic plastic, no glasses needed, pretty cool. Where are they now?

The polarized technology was out in kits, 50 years ago.

Then people have come up with improved colors for the glasses, and tweaked things, and at best (IMHO) it's still an entertaining toy or novelty. Consider the source, because if I'm on a website and can choose between reading a page or many pages or watching a video of instruction, I chose the images and printed page. When forced to watch a video only, I close the page and take a pass. I feel the same about wearing glasses to watch a movie or TV or my computer. Well maybe except I did like Captain EO at Epcot.

No I don't see 3D as a serious format for marketing stock images or video clips.

The new Lytro camera is nice. Practical and affordable? I don't know. But it's not going to make your DSLR obsolete or take over the market.

« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2011, 21:30 »
0
Interesting. I have to admit I've never seen a 3d movie... but I do run to the stereoscopes in photography museums and I have to be pried off with a large spatula.

But don't you think it HAS to be more than a fad. I mean, our eyes see 3d. 2d just isn't natural in this world. Isn't the only thing holding this back the technology?

Sure the technology isn't there yet... but they've already made computer screens that don't need glasses and paper is defnitely on its way out.  How many bookshops and newspapers are closing?

« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2011, 21:32 »
0
Put on your glasses  :D




no glass dammit : (  did you make this by taking a series of shot in a parallel line and then choosing the left and right eye?

RacePhoto

« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2011, 01:06 »
0
Interesting. I have to admit I've never seen a 3d movie... but I do run to the stereoscopes in photography museums and I have to be pried off with a large spatula.

But don't you think it HAS to be more than a fad. I mean, our eyes see 3d. 2d just isn't natural in this world. Isn't the only thing holding this back the technology?

Sure the technology isn't there yet... but they've already made computer screens that don't need glasses and paper is defnitely on its way out.  How many bookshops and newspapers are closing?


The technology hasn't been "there yet" for 60 years. They had stereoscope viewers in the 1800s. When do you think it will catch on past the novelty stage?  ;D

This site used to offer free glasses. I didn't look, but if you need them, this is the place. (since they sent me a free set years ago, I think they deserve the plug) http://rainbowsymphony.com/ Every kind of glasses that are made, red/blue, blue/red, perfect colors, variations, polarized and others.

Making 3D images with photoshop:  http://www.scec.org/geowall/makeanaglyph.html

Or take two pictures 60mm apart and combine with PS. There was a very friendly site that I haven't bookmarked, but the guy had two P&S mounted with shutter release and snap snap easy 3D.

Don't get me wrong. It's interesting, it's good perception science, it can be fun, but it's just a side interest beyond what's going to be useful and embraced by the public.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2011, 05:56 »
0
But don't you think it HAS to be more than a fad. I mean, our eyes see 3d. 2d just isn't natural in this world. Isn't the only thing holding this back the technology?

No, it isn't. You won't convince me that 3D is more real than 2D.

Reality and its representation will never be the same thing (Schopenhauer, "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung", "Parerga und Paralipomena", etc);

And especially I don't want it to be.
If we are happy with a 2D (instead of 3D), or a stereo (instead of quadrophonic) representation of reality, why change?

The world as it is is not so great. Art doesn't need to conform to reality. The opposite is better. Am I crazy?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 05:59 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2011, 09:29 »
0
Put on your glasses  :D




no glass dammit : (  did you make this by taking a series of shot in a parallel line and then choosing the left and right eye?


I just shot with the left eye in viewfinder... slid the camera over to the right eye and used the same focus point and shot again. I have a program I picked up for free on the net that does the anaglyphs.

« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2011, 14:41 »
0
I just shot with the left eye in viewfinder... slid the camera over to the right eye and used the same focus point and shot again. I have a program I picked up for free on the net that does the anaglyphs.

: ) lol... simple

My dream would be to make a hologram of yoda, one that could really cut things up with a lightsabre.  Tables, stuff like that.  Hoping for a slight amendment to the laws of physics in my next firmware update (go canon go - i believe in you)

RacePhoto

« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2011, 10:42 »
0
Put on your glasses  :D




no glass dammit : (  did you make this by taking a series of shot in a parallel line and then choosing the left and right eye?


I just shot with the left eye in viewfinder... slid the camera over to the right eye and used the same focus point and shot again. I have a program I picked up for free on the net that does the anaglyphs.


Yes, Yes, now you have my attention, and that program is? ???  ;D

I found Axara Free 3D image creator, Watch out it tries to install a tool bar. No big deal but I have no need for multiple tool bars. Free download, it seems to work just fine. Simple and intuitive. I did this one with a depth of 6 which might be too much? From one image by the way. FREE

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Graphic-Others/Axara-Free-3D-Image-Creator.shtml



"Free" 3D glasses, for $2 postage and handling. Cute way to sell them? http://www.3dglasses.com/free3d.htm

But this place has a the wide selection, plastic, paper, designer, just about ever kind of glasses you could want. Magenta/Green too.  http://www.rainbowsymphonystore.com/3dglasses.html  Cool plastic glasses, Under $7, overruns = 200 cardboard for $30. Fun place.

And probably the best deal of all - Honestly Free, just send a SASE and they will send you a pair of glasses. So what's that? Under a buck US money for some cardboard glasses.  http://www.3dglasses.net/free3dglasses.htm (which by the way, is another Rainbow Symphony site) One per customer.

Hmm, 3D postcard for 2012?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2011, 12:31 by RacePhoto »

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #14 on: June 30, 2011, 10:52 »
0
Put on your glasses  :D




no glass dammit : (  did you make this by taking a series of shot in a parallel line and then choosing the left and right eye?


I just shot with the left eye in viewfinder... slid the camera over to the right eye and used the same focus point and shot again. I have a program I picked up for free on the net that does the anaglyphs.


Yes, Yes, now you have my attention, and that program is? ???  ;D


http://anabuilder.free.fr/welcomeEN.html

« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2011, 12:07 »
0
Skimming through this thread leads me to the conclusion that these '3d photographs' are stereoscopic images. Stereoscopy can be applied to already still images.

If you were talking about a camera that produces 3d models from taking a shot of a subject or environment then that will be going into another league indeed. To create a 3d model from the real world through photography you have to take multiple photos from different angles and sit around for hours for the computer to process a half decent model.

A character artist Lee Perry Smith's work is a great example of photo-scanning portraits and rendering them realistically.

http://www.ir-ltd.net/research-development-multi-lights-and-colour-capture

For now a lot of time and money needs to be invested to get results like this.

« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2011, 12:50 »
0
But then there is also 3D printing now. But it is so far from scanned object.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2011, 04:51 »
0
I have no idea about it. But it is definitely a nice thread, & would love to hear about it


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2002 Views
Last post February 06, 2014, 16:49
by gaja
5 Replies
2058 Views
Last post April 04, 2014, 09:54
by Digital66
52 Replies
15927 Views
Last post June 26, 2014, 00:10
by photographyplus
2 Replies
3869 Views
Last post July 28, 2015, 08:59
by PROStalkFatagopher
0 Replies
2540 Views
Last post April 28, 2021, 07:49
by Brightontl

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors