For 3D without glasses, can I presume that unless you are at the correct distance and angle the 3D effect wont work?
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.
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,
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.
Originally Posted by holmburgers
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
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.
I agree with Keith on this one. 3D is just a gimmick.
People feel real emotions after reading stuff posted on the web, too.
Originally Posted by keithwms
I've done some 3D lenticular photography in the past. The resulting photographs were good, of course depending on the subject matter.
Originally Posted by keithwms
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...