Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,333   Posts: 1,537,455   Online: 1094
      
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 105
  1. #91
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by holmburgers View Post
    ... and heck, just imagine what it might do to the nudey magazine industry!.... ok, scratch that last thought...
    I suspect that scratch-n-sniff technology would take the porn industry much further
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  2. #92
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,418
    Images
    2
    lol.... that's something I hadn't considered!

  3. #93
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,630
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Sounds like those old "3-D" images from when I was a kid, which were called lenticular or prismatic images. They had straight parallel ridges. They gave either a 3-D effect or part or all of the image would change when viewing angle changed.
    The 3-D images were more blurry than the type that changed. They were sometimes prizes in Crackerjack boxes. The cover picture of one of the Rolling Stones' albums was lenticular for a 3-D effect. I remember an issue of some magazine had one on the cover. I'm not positive, but I think there were some special edition trading cards that used them, too.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_printing
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #94
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,418
    Images
    2
    I see so many lenticular prints of Jesus at antique malls... and every once in a while a 'secular' image. I've got one of a "lovely" vase of flowers hanging in my room, and I was this close to buying one of a small white dog...

    Some guy from China is trying to sell some off some of the cameras that were used to make these types of images; he posted some information on this thread. They have an automatically shifting front lens standard and shoot 8x10". If I had a lot of disposable income....

    The difference between lenticular prints, which is kind of a misnomer because they all use "lenticles" (lenses), and the more modern version is that lenticular prints only work in one axis, whereas the fly's eye array or prismatic(?) images work in any direction.

    I just learned about a new 3D method last night while leafing through an old book. Edwin Land's Vectorgraph.

  5. #95
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by holmburgers View Post
    I see so many lenticular prints of Jesus at antique malls...
    Antique lenticular prints of Jesus??? Were they also selling any Rembrandts? Of Elvis on black velvet? Minty condition? I know those are hot!

    Autostereograms have the problem that the eyes need to defocus, and aren't reliably viewable by everyone. 3D technology has been with us for a rather long while, and the only thing that's held it back has been what's plagued photography from the start: composition.

    We really haven't had any good art photography done with 3D. Is there a 3D movie where you'd say, "Gee, the 2D version was good, but you've just got to see it in 3D! It just falls flat without the depth." Most of the time, the result is, "Oh, what garbage did they make now?"

    There are 3D pictures from the Civil War and WWI. But after that, 3D is out of the picture, so to speak. When I've seen color pictures from 1900, I think to myself, "Oooh, how real!" When I see stereo pictures, there's another added dimension of reality. But really, we've simply dropped everything when it comes down to seriously advancing the camera. Really, where is all the stereo technology? We have amazing advances in exposure and focus, but nothing for stereo.

  6. #96
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    I have a box of stereo Autochromes (undated) and remember the upsurge of 3D in the '50s. The 3 Stooges shot some stereo to get the pie in the eye effect for the audience!

    PE

  7. #97

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    We really haven't had any good art photography done with 3D. Is there a 3D movie where you'd say, "Gee, the 2D version was good, but you've just got to see it in 3D! It just falls flat without the depth." Most of the time, the result is, "Oh, what garbage did they make now?"
    Check out Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams from earlier this year. It's a documentary filmed in 3d. It floored me and I was convinced 3d cinema was a gimmicky waste of time as I was sitting down in the theatre.

    He uses the quirks of the 3d-fication of 2d images he's used in parts to add to the idiosyncrasy and off-centredness that runs through most of his stuff. As an asset. Rather than trying to pretend it's not there. And the parts that are in true 3d are stunning. He's actually using it in a creative way rather than as eye candy (although it is that too). He's composing in 3 dimensions. It's a fairly specialised subject matter that particularly lends itself to the medium, but it shows it's possible to use it well. Worth checking out. It's always possible to get a bergman flick out on dvd (VHS... no, betamax... sorry!!) to try wash the filth off after

    3d televisions are stupid though. That I stand by. People stopped buying 1000" plasma screens so they had to think of some other crap to move units. But then I think one of the things in your house is enough, most likely even too much, so what do I know .

    On a related note - I remember a friend asking me in about '02 as a "tech person" whether he should get a mobile phone with a camera in it. I said, "no, don't bother. It's just a gimmick." Now people are fighting revolutions with the things...

    -8fish

  8. #98

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    City of Newburgh, NY
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    6
    I had the pleasure of apprenticing with a fine art holographer for 7 years in the 1980's- and I'm still peripherally involved (the holography world is very small). It was his incredible grasp of the limitations of the medium that pushed him to create images that could only exist in a hologram. The artistic imagery and animation he achieved- and technical experience he needed to master- actually aided the scientific progress of the medium. Yes, there are computer generated full color holograms that are now being produced. There was a rare exhibit of a range of art holography in Beacon, NY- that closed just last month- that had almost all forms of holograms including several examples of the digital ones. It will be interesting to see how digital holograms will evolve. Attempting to imagine what the viewer sees in 3D is far more complex than creating 2D images with contraptions that are just as 2D as the final product. Holography is a much more complex process, thus narrowing the number of people who would even attempt the feat from the technical aspect alone. For that reason- and others- I don't believe that you can expect the same interest from photographers of the possibilities. I couldn't have been closer to the holographic process/progress yet as much as I was amazed by it, and am still, I can't get my head around producing images that are worth the effort- from my photographic perspective. Additionally, you can't really capture a "moment" in a hologram. Even the digital process seems to allow only for imagery that can be created in an extremely aseptic studio setting. The round holograms are the closest to something accessibly viewed but they are not true holograms; they are frames of movie film translated optically through the holographic process into vertical "slits" of which your eye sees more than one, thus creating the illusion of dimension. Photography in its infancy was accessible to many people, from the practitioners to the viewers. Holography is now 50 years old and has a long way to go before it will make a dent in exploring its possibilities and will be challenged to get past the gimmick perception of the medium. I believe that is why other processes will lead to the cutting-edge 3D world to which you refer- processes that haven't even been explored yet.

  9. #99
    Erik Petersson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    634
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    Antique lenticular prints of Jesus??? Were they also selling any Rembrandts? Of Elvis on black velvet? Minty condition? I know those are hot!

    Autostereograms have the problem that the eyes need to defocus, and aren't reliably viewable by everyone. 3D technology has been with us for a rather long while, and the only thing that's held it back has been what's plagued photography from the start: composition.

    We really haven't had any good art photography done with 3D. Is there a 3D movie where you'd say, "Gee, the 2D version was good, but you've just got to see it in 3D! It just falls flat without the depth." Most of the time, the result is, "Oh, what garbage did they make now?"

    There are 3D pictures from the Civil War and WWI. But after that, 3D is out of the picture, so to speak. When I've seen color pictures from 1900, I think to myself, "Oooh, how real!" When I see stereo pictures, there's another added dimension of reality. But really, we've simply dropped everything when it comes down to seriously advancing the camera. Really, where is all the stereo technology? We have amazing advances in exposure and focus, but nothing for stereo.

    I liked "Pina" by Wim Wenders. It is a German documentary about a dance choreographer, Pina Bausch. Or how should I put it. The filming started as a documentary, but then Pina died and the film is about how a group of dancers remember her. Much of this is expressed through dance, not words. Very beautiful and good use of 3D. No car chases, no space ships, no storyline. Just beauty.

    And, I should add, I liked the 3D effects in Avatar, although the movie is rather silly.

  10. #100
    Erik Petersson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    634
    Images
    8
    What regards the future, I happen to have overheard that a Russian oligarch (won't write his name) will establish the "Institute of Pre-digital Photography", as he wishes to call it. It will be joint venture with one of the Saudi princes and a mega-rich Chinese businessman who is also an art dealer. They plan to hire staff in St Petersburg and Shanghai, about 50 researchers I think, and film coating lines in both cities. Lots of guest researchers will be welcome. There will be grants and scholarships to other manufacturers and to practitioners in the range from 5000 to 5 million USD.

    Ooops I forgot, I was not supposed to say anything yet. I hope they don't change their minds now!

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin