Messages on Anaglyphs group
Post on Anaglyphs group
Viewed
(180K)
----- Original Message -----From: Tim JohnsonSent: Friday, August 06, 2010 4:04 PMSubject: Re: [Anaglyphs] Imre and all, What do 2D photographers think of 3D? -Gug
From: Guglielmo Menegatti <kems(-at-)magia.it>
Subject: Re: [Anaglyphs] Imre and all, What do 2D photographers think of 3D?
To: anaglyphs(-at-)yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 6, 2010, 7:01 AM
Hi to allas all expert know the 3D from two cameras is not perfect and the depth and the result can change in function of many parameters.The people that see the 3D not receive a good feeling, because search in the image a perfection but the perfection in the stereo images do not exist.The stereo images have not a perfection but have other important advantages, the first advantage is the f"ull immersion" and the second is a shook.The rules to do a "full immersion" and other effects is very simple if you do not know this rules you can discute or you search these rules.I think however that the currently rules used and called "WV" are completely false.This is my opinion.CiaoGuglielmo----- Original Message -----From: Brian WallaceTo: anaglyphsSent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:52 PMSubject: [Anaglyphs] What do 2D photographers think of 3D?I was asked today by a photographer (his profession), "Why all the 3D stuff?", after he apparently was lead to my photostream while viewing a 2D image I posted in a Flickr group. I'm only assuming how he got there by his comments which indecently were entered on a recent 3D image but nothing was mentioned in reference to the image.In the back of my mind, I've been wondering if this would ever come up in that situation since I occasionally post 2D images on Flickr, otherwise only 3D enthusiasts would know of my 3D entries there.I hope I'm not assuming too much by thinking this might be of interest to anyone in our 3D stereo group, but if you're curious as to the exchange, please read on. (if not, just close this post now).Ummm...why all the 3D stuff?
N05.jpg?1187052902#9732703(-at-)N05 "http://www.flickr.com/photos/ur4chun8/")
starg82343 (6 hours ago | edit | delete)
My first urge was to reply "Why not?". If you're capable of seeing with both eyes, then why would you want to view the world with only one? That is 2D, but we live in a 3D world. To me, 3D makes almost any image more interesting, but the images must be done very well. I've been learning and developing my 3D skills for 4 years now and still finding ways to improve. I have nearly 11 thousand images on my photostream and only fairly recently have I started including some 2D. I think there is a place for all formats (if one is open minded), and I enjoy variety with anything connected to life.
Yes, it's more difficult to create good 3D images compared to 2D images. There are many compromises put into 3D stereo that don't have to be done with 2D. That's a challenge but when you become good at it, it's also rewarding. Virtually everything you need to create 3D is free except your camera, but you can invest in tools that may allow higher levels of the end product.
Although 3D has been with us nearly as long as photography alone, technology is finally allowing 3D into the mainstream. This picture was taken with the first digital 3D camera in the world. Immediately after you take a picture, you can see the 3D results on the LCD display without the use of 3D glasses! TV is now being sold with both 2D and 3D ability. All animated movies are now made in 3D, and an increasing percent of regular feature films. Technology is being developed to allow viewing of 3D TV without the use of headwear! So, why all the 3D stuff??? Some of us are just thinking ahead. : )Thanks for your interest, and I hope being a photographer, you keep an open mind about all formats of photography and gain an interest in possibilities which may lay outside what we know.
What is not the norm today, will be common place tomorrow.N00.jpg?1233002811#61641355(-at-)N00 "http://www.flickr.com/photos/thompsonphotography1/")
Well, in a sense the technology is over 100 years old. I have a large collection of vintage Victorian images including dozens of stereoview cards, which were a form of 3D imagery. And, as you probably know, quite a few movies in the 50's were made with 3D technology. It comes and goes, so some see it as a fad or gimmick. To each his own. Best of luck to you; you seem very commited to this project.It's no longer limited to the same old technology thus the same old fad that seems to come and go. Much more has been invested these days. Cinemas have put in millions of dollars to update to new technology for accommodating the film industry. It's no longer a once in a great while 3D movie. There never was 3D TV before. It's here to stay by all accounts. The cardboard 3D glasses have been replaced by clear (polarized, and ghostless) 3D recyclable glasses for feature films.The stigma from those old days of "fad" still lingers I see, primarily by the "poke in your face" for a cheap thrill effects that were used predominately back then. There's a new horizon these days and some important people have seen the benefits to marketing this which will eventually remove the "fad stigma" associated with it.As far as creating 3D images, it's a great deal of fun for those that are not blocked by the ideal of it only being a fad. It's also quite addictive once you give it a try.N03.jpg?1261788420#9180207(-at-)N03 "http://www.flickr.com/photos/depthography/")
A lot of us do 3D for the satisfaction of trying something that is challenging to do and being fascinated with trying to master it or at least get better at it. Brian is in that group I believe and has brought a lot of great insight to the community of 3D enthusiasts. I hope you have fun checking out his shots and conversions.Thanks for commenting Neil!
