Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,713   Posts: 1,514,722   Online: 842
      
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 105
  1. #71
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,037
    Images
    340
    For 3D without glasses, can I presume that unless you are at the correct distance and angle the 3D effect won’t work?

  2. #72
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,409
    Images
    2
    Certainly, but that's also true with glasses 3D. There will always be an optimum location and viewing angle; but the wider it is, the higher the mark of quality.

    Yves Gentet's full-color holographs are said to approach a 180° viewing angle, which is remarkable.

  3. #73
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    I detest 3D images.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  4. #74
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,409
    Images
    2
    So does that mean you hate having 2 eyes?



    There's a lot of resentment for 3D, but I think that glassless 3D photographs, in a gallery or museum setting, is something that hasn't really been fully realized in an artistic sense.

    I don't personally think that 3D is inherently objectionable, it's just that it is used for less-than-noble purposes like advertisting & stupid Hollywood movies.

    I forget the name, but I picked up a 3D book with built in glasses at the library and they were abstract 3D compositions by a competent artist. Some were based off photographs, some were more abstract, but what I took from it was that the ability to create something within the 3D medium (as opposed to just reproduce or record) is a potentially very exciting artistic notion.

    But to each their own,

  5. #75
    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
    So does that mean you hate having 2 eyes?
    Quite the opposite: my natural depth perception works so well that when I see simulated 3D images they look awful. I tried the latest and greatest 3D tv recently and it looked only slightly better than what I saw in the theaters as a kid.

    I also think that much of the creative art in photography and painting is the transformation of the 3D world into a 2D depiction.

    I simply haven't seen any 3D photography that I care for.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  6. #76
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,862
    Images
    65
    There is a review of 3D systems in this months Science News magazine. Newest of all is the 3D Holotable that works much like the units in Avatar. Right now DARPA is using this technology for (of course) military evaluation.

    The glassless 3D varies with angle and therefore has a very minimum viewing angle for best imaging. The type with glasses give many people headaches due to the supposedly wide viewing angle which is not really correct. If you are far off axis, the view is distorted and can cause headaches and nausea.

    PE

  7. #77
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,667
    Images
    108
    I think there are two trends at cinematography.
    First recording 3d in to 3d
    Second transforming 2d to 3d

    Nobody cares about transforming 3d in to 2d anymore

    PE told a technology invented by his Kodak friend , it was about creating 3D from old film , first sending first frame to one eye and second frame to other. I think this can be transcribed to computer software with green red color 3D picture.

    I really want to watch Stalker in 3D and this is not space age technology. I can work on that.

    Umut

  8. #78
    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 Photo Engineer View Post
    Right now DARPA is using this technology for (of course) military evaluation.
    I could be wrong but to my knowledge the biggest uses of this technology are for simulators and for virtual drone cockpits. Of course, the ultimate goal is to have the warfighter completely removed from the actual battle but still engaged as realistically as possible. It's gotten quite close to the avatar level: people do get nauseated and feel real emotions in their virtual worlds.

    There will be eventual spinoffs to gaming and other kinds of entertainment. But photography... nah. There are two opposing forces here to consider: reality and creative interpretation. Eventually they conflict. One reason why people appreciate art is that it takes us somewhere beyond reality... into the unfamiliar. Art makes us see things in new ways. If photography goes 3D and literal for journalism, great. But not so great for art and creativity and tickling the imagination.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  9. #79
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,037
    Images
    340
    I agree with Keith on this one. 3D is just a gimmick.

  10. #80
    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 keithwms View Post
    It's gotten quite close to the avatar level: people do get nauseated and feel real emotions in their virtual worlds.
    People feel real emotions after reading stuff posted on the web, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    There are two opposing forces here to consider: reality and creative interpretation. Eventually they conflict. One reason why people appreciate art is that it takes us somewhere beyond reality... into the unfamiliar. Art makes us see things in new ways. If photography goes 3D and literal for journalism, great. But not so great for art and creativity and tickling the imagination.
    I've done some 3D lenticular photography in the past. The resulting photographs were good, of course depending on the subject matter.

    3D, by itself, has no detrimental effect on creativity. What it made me do was select subject far more carefully, because the 3D effect is only apparent when the subjects are within a specific range. Outside of that range, the image becomes 2D. The 2D image is just as literal as the 3D image.

    Since with a lenticular array each eye receives a different image, each eye can be made to view a completely separate image. Now the view of reality is reformed or distorted much further than what a 2D image could accomplish.

    Therefore, 3D imagery is an advance from 2D. It's just that optically printing a lenticular 3D image is a pain...

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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