Slashdot Mirror


3D Photo Gadget Reviewed

Daniel Rutter writes "I've just reviewed Mission3-D's Photo3-D 303 kit. It's a simple and straightforward way to take 3D pictures with your existing digicam, but it otherwise doesn't live up to the hype. It turns out you can do the same thing better, for less money."

99 comments

  1. 3d pron?!?!? by MysticGlyph · · Score: 2, Funny

    I want 3D pron!!!!

    --
    Try my new smokable Sig, ...Sig-erette.
    1. Re:3d pron?!?!? by staed · · Score: 0
    2. Re:3d pron?!?!? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      If you follow the jiggle link on the review page, you'll find some nekkid pictures. One taken in Santa Cruz, but I was just there and there aren't generally naked women climbing on the rocks, more's the pity.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    3. Re:3d pron?!?!? by Hank+Reardon · · Score: 1
      The woodsy-road shot actually looked somewhat 3D to my eyes, the rest just looked like that annoying Wang Chung video from the 80's for "Everybody Have Fun Tonight".

      I'm guessing that the large amount of movement of the closer objects helps to spoil the illusion in the rest of the pictures. Anybody know if I'm on the right track here?

      --
      There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
    4. Re:3d pron?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ask... And you shall receive.

      I'll take my thanks anonymously

      FilthyKid

    5. Re:3d pron?!?!? by _Sexy_Pants_ · · Score: 1

      I've gotta worry about myself when I know I've already seen that page

      --
      Look it's a joke about my sig IN MY SIG! LOL!
    6. Re:3d pron?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to www.renderotica.com, and you shall find it...

  2. Intresting concept. by notque · · Score: 5, Funny

    It turns out you can do the same thing better, for less money

    Yes.. actually going outside.

    --
    http://use.perl.org
    1. Re:Intresting concept. by seriv · · Score: 1

      but where is the fun in that when you have got slashdot indoors:p
      -Seriv

    2. Re:Intresting concept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "same thing better"

      You got further than I did. I am stuck on this line.

    3. Re:Intresting concept. by TheMidget · · Score: 1
      but where is the fun in that when you have got slashdot indoors

      That's what Laptops+cellphones are for.

  3. the big one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is the big one! oh yeah, watch out!

  4. 99.95% of the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You can always do the same thing for less money.

    1. Re:99.95% of the time by localghost · · Score: 1

      In this case, you can do the same thing with higher quality parts for less money. He doesn't seem all that impressed with the quality of the hardware in the review.

  5. I could use this by gsparrow · · Score: 1

    3D story boards for artist would be good

  6. Oh you tease by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

    It turns out you can do the same thing better, for less money.

    how do you keep a turkey in suspense?

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    1. Re:Oh you tease by notque · · Score: 2, Funny

      how do you keep a turkey in suspense?

      How?!?!

      I MUST know!

      Respond quickly...

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    2. Re:Oh you tease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, it is a commonly held belief that an idiot would look at that question and remain in suspense, waiting for the answer. When the truth is, scientific studies have shown...

  7. Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you have a digital camera that is quite fast and with manual controls, just take two photos focused differently. With this, given the focal length, you should be able to create a 3d image with minimal programming experience. In fact, if someone could find a way to reprogram camera firmware, it would be even easier.

    1. Re:Um... by dnaboy · · Score: 1

      There's actually a really cool page with some examples

    2. Re:Um... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like that will just give you a blury photo, perhaps with a fake 3Dish look. To create 3D photos, you MUST take 2 photos that are taken from a seperate position (~15cm "slid to the side" I think). Just taking a photo with different focal points isn't going to give you a 3D image any more than sticking feathers up your but is going to make you a chicken.

    3. Re:Um... by Master+Bait · · Score: 1
      Astronomers have been using this parallax method to measure the distance to stars by taking one image in the Springtime, and the other in the Fall, when the earth is on the other side of the sun 180 or so million miles side-to-side!

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
    4. Re:Um... by smallfeet · · Score: 1

      You could use an old pre-digital sterioscopic viewer to view the prints of you pictures. Very Victorian. Didn't there used to be a desposable camera that would give you 3D prints with some sort of refractive plastic on top?

  8. Just like the muppets show.. by LinuxThis · · Score: 0

    Sounds like fun.. hooks into any digital camera they say? Wonder if you could get a 6 megapixel 11x15 print in 3d.. Maybe 3d wallpaper (like the room kind). Still uses those annoying, er but effective, 3d colored glasses.

  9. Just use two cameras like the Matrix stuff by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just use a two or three camera shoot, and use the difference in parallax between the images to create a stereo image. OR, for an even cheaper solution, use ONE camera and move it AROUND the subject. I have seen some really convincing 3-d stuff made this way.

    --
    stuff |
  10. You insensitive clod! by ejdmoo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've only got one eye!

    (ps--this really is the case)

    1. Re:You insensitive clod! by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "I've only got one eye!"

      Don't blame us, Ralphie. We all told you what would happen if you got that BB gun for Christmas.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:You insensitive clod! by 00420 · · Score: 1

      That's gotta suck. I have a friend with a similar problem (he actually has two eyes but one of them doesn't work worth shit). He's an artist too, so it kind of sucks for him that things are moving towards 3D, and he will never be able to create 3D things himself. Although with improvements in medicine maybe someday he will be able to use both eyes (or just some stupid looking visor).

    3. Re:You insensitive clod! by setik · · Score: 1

      I have a lazy eye, and only fully focus out of one eye at any time thus I dont have depth-perception the same way most people do. As a kid I allways felt left out when ever I saw those red/blue "3d" movies, cuz I never saw anything but red or blue depending which eye I was looking out of. The only real plus is that I can scare the hell out of anyone riding in my car while I'm driving when I tell them about my less then steller depth perception.

    4. Re:You insensitive clod! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a wandering eye, and it really hurts when my wife slaps me...

    5. Re:You insensitive clod! by ejdmoo · · Score: 1

      Yep...I was never good at baseball.

      "I got it!"

      *ball flies over head*

  11. imagine... by bojan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    a beowulf cluster of 3D cameras!!

    1. Re:imagine... by UltimaL337Star · · Score: 0

      I drool foor it almost as much as a beowulf cluster of off-topic and redundunt posts... now how do i make one of those...

  12. 3D PORN FINALLY!! by bojan · · Score: 0, Troll

    Mmmmmmmmmmmm.. I can almost taste the jizz...

    New invention, cameras that capture SCENT with pictures. Now that might be tricky, but it probably could work.

    light is made up of 3 colors.. so why can't scent be made up of some primitives, too?

    1. Re:3D PORN FINALLY!! by L.+VeGas · · Score: 1

      Mmmmmmmmmmmm.. I can almost taste the jizz..

      mom?

    2. Re:3D PORN FINALLY!! by bojan · · Score: 0

      g0d?

  13. Why it's already dead by Form-o-Stuff · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Why would we care to save pictures with the red and blue channels smeared, when they just came out with the 3D laptop? Isn't that a bit easier..?

    1. Re:Why it's already dead by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      3D laptop: $3200
      3D glasses: $0.32

      You tell me.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:Why it's already dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      3D laptop: $3200

      3D glasses: $0.32

      Learning to divide by 10,000: Priceless

    3. Re:Why it's already dead by Form-o-Stuff · · Score: 1

      It's not full color, and that about does it. People want the cool shit, not to go backwards. Unless you want to pull an 80's revival, which I'd say wouldn't be too hard in today's social climate.

  14. the sample gallery? where they strut their stuff? by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Informative
    http://www.mission3-d.com/community.php?content=ga llery

    Nice.. gotta love a commercial website, that sells a product, and can't even bother to show samples

    for those who don't want to look, here's what it says
    "Coming soon...
    under development ..."

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  15. Re:Um...No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to create 3d images you need have a two images of the same thing taken from slightly different angle. This angle is what allows you to create the image.
    Think about it like this: your right eye and left eye have different angles to view every object at. They do not view the object from the same angle whilst focusing at two different depths. Without the second angle you've just got a clear image and blury image since some pieces of the image are only viewable from one eye or the other.

  16. Color Anaglyphs by boomgopher · · Score: 1

    Here's a good resource regarding color anaglyphs:

    http://www.aifx.com/3d_cavar.html

    --
    Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
  17. 2-lens digital cameras? by raygundan · · Score: 1

    Does anybody make a reasonable consumer-level digicam that will take 3D shots without all the monkeying around with moving the camera and re-shooting the same subject?

    I would LOVE to be able to snag some 3-megapixel or better 3D shots with someting along the lines of a wider 2-lens Canon S230.

    Does anybody know of anything like this? Reasonable quality, easy to use, affordable 3D digital camera?

    1. Re:2-lens digital cameras? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do a Web search. I've seen various 3D cameras for years. Some are parallax types that capture two photos, as used in some of the anaglyphs. ("Fake" 3D can also be achieved with a little Photoshop work.) There are cameras that capture TRUE 3D information--polygonal model data you can open with your favorite 3D app. And the camera captures an image that can be used for the texture map, to boot. Those cameras are not cheap. Some companies offer an "archival" service similar to the 3D camera, only they use high performance systems (non-portable) that capture texture and 3D data with tri-color lasers. All we need now are room light holographic projectors...

    2. Re:2-lens digital cameras? by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      I'll bet it would be cheaper just to buy 2 cameras and fasten them to opposite ends of a stick.

    3. Re:2-lens digital cameras? by raygundan · · Score: 1

      Tried-- the best i've come up with are:

      1. Cheapo film models with proprietary processing.
      2. Cheapo film models with proprietary processing that results in one of those ridged plastic things rather than a stero pair.
      3. Expensive custom dual-lens SLR film cameras.
      4. Expensive single-lens 3D macro cameras.
      5. VERY expensive stuff like you mentioned.
      6. Do-it-yourself stereo videocams made from board-mount circuits. (This one looks like fun to me, but isn't what I'm after)

      I think I may go with what the other poster said, and just glue two of them together. Now if only I could get them to share their focal/shutter info with eachother...

  18. Fear by grub · · Score: 1


    If you thought your eyes were burning before, wait until the goatse.cx guy gets one of these units..

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  19. summary: $129 tripod with two-position slider by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 3, Informative

    Bah. For $129 you get a tripod that lets you slide the camera to a right and left eye perspective.

    --

  20. How lame. I've done better handheld. by Goldenhawk · · Score: 2, Informative
    The "gallery" is "pending" - no photos there! If you want to sell a product, get the web site complete first! Urf.

    The only thing really useful here is the color-combining software, and anyone reasonably competent with a good image editing program can do it manually.

    I've been taking crossed-eye stereograms for years - take a photo, move sideways a few inches, take another, then place the images side-by-side and cross your eyes until you see one combined stereoscopic image. The main problem with this method (as with the kit being discussed in this story) is the delay between shots - fine for still life, lousy for action shots (or even still life with moving stuff like wind-blown trees, or running water).

    Turns out those old stereo viewers are quite useful: http://www.threedview.com/Images/showstereo.jpg They may be antiques, but they really work well, as long as you're content with a 3x3 image (which works just fine for most shots). And you can print a pretty high-quality image pair on any inkjet printer these days.

    The TRUE benefit of stereo viewers that don't depend on color shifting is that the colors look completely natural, and they're a lot easier on the eyes than color mixing.

    But you can get the same effect with crossed-eye stereograms, with ZERO equipment, as long as you're physically capable of crossing your eyes and refocusing.

    Here's an excellent primer on setting up and viewing crossed-eye stereograms. http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/freeview.html

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

  21. Welcome to GNU GVideo GProfessor! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    "Don't fumble through boring man pages. Try my product!" - Richard M. Stallman, GNU Founder and CEO

    GNU GVideo GProfessor is the leader in computer learning. We have taught over 5 million people, and we can teach you GNU/Linux, GNU/Emacs, GNU/gcc, and more! GNU GVideo GProfessor was founded in 1983 to provide consumers with training on software for their personal computers. Since that time, millions have successfully used and learned from GNU GVideo GProfessor's fool-proof "What-You-See-Is-What-You-Do" teaching method. The first lesson, GNU/Emacs 1.0, was available only on video tape. Over the years, GNU GVideo GProfessor has produced hundreds of titles on video, CD-ROM, and online. GNU GVideo GProfessor is the fastest, easiest way to learn computers. We guarantee it!

    It's FAST! You'll be up and running in an hour! Don't waste time sifting through man pages, commuting to classes or seminars. Just pop in the CD-ROM and you're learning!

    It's EASY! It's as simple as 1-2-3! GNU GVideo GProfessor's straightforward "What-You -See-Is-What-You-Do" approach makes learning as easy as watching TV!

    It's CONVENIENT! We're ready to teach you day and night! With your busy schedule, you don't have time to waste at classes or seminars. Don't fumble through boring man pages. Whatever your schedule, we're ready when you are!

    It's COMPLETE! These aren't short teaser lessons. Each 60-minute lesson takes you from installing the software to more advanced skills. And they're not just for beginners! We'll surprise you with the knowledge you'll gain!

    Why Am I Making This Incredible Offer? I'm so confident that once you try my exceptional " What-You-See-Is-What-You-Do" learning method, you'll turn to us for all your computer learning needs.

    * How it works!

    The bonus gift and ANY TWO of the three computer learning CD-ROMs are yours free without further obligation, PERIOD. Take 10 days to decide if you want to keep the complete set of CDs. After your 10 day free trial, if you decide to keep the complete set, we'll conveniently bill your credit card just $69.95. Or simply contact our customer care number at rtfm@gnu.org if you decide to return any one of the lessons, and you will be charged nothing more!

    Every day hundreds of people just like you learn with GNU GVideo GProfessor this same fast and easy way. If you decide to keep all three lessons, every five weeks you will continue learning by automatically receiving other GNU GVideo GProfessor subjects you have an interest in, billed on the same exact terms as your first shipment. Or simply call and cancel. Everything is up to you! But most important, you are never under any obligation to purchase a subject that you don't keep. Best of all, the bonus gift, and your choice of any two of the three computer learning CD-ROMs are yours to keep FREE!

    f

  22. morons review creator's 3d+ newclear power plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's right. you won't need any highly touted buy shills gadgets, or even a model rocket cam, to see the light.

    the daze of the phonIE georgewellian fuddite corepirate nazi payper liesense stock markup FraUD execrable gadgeteers is WANing into coolapps/the abyss, at the speed of right.

    consult with/trust in yOUR creator.... vote with yOUR wallet. that's the spirit, moving you.

  23. Re:RTFA by michaelhood · · Score: 1

    This DOES move one camera around the subject. It just provides a tripod with a sliding rail.

  24. Now try this at parties... by advocate_one · · Score: 1
    yeah... just you try and get everybody to hold that pose real still while you slide the camera over for the next exposure...

    and as for patent pending on their do-hickey... just wtf is so innovative here??? the Victorians were doing this two viewpoint with single camera. I seem to remember seeing a sliding camera tripod bracket long ago back in the sixties as well...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:Now try this at parties... by nameer · · Score: 1

      It's probably a design patent, not a method patent. Design patents just keep people from copying your design.

      --
      "Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?" --Pinky
  25. My Pentax Digital camera does this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's pretty easy to do, it shows you an faded image in the lcd while you move the camera. I've taken some great 3D shots with it.

    1. Re:My Pentax Digital camera does this by kirun · · Score: 1

      Pentax digital cameras also have an option to make kitty sounds!

      Is there anything they don't do?

      --
      I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
    2. Re:My Pentax Digital camera does this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am very disappointed with my Pentax digital camera's 3D mode. The cha cha method is one I was really hoping to get away from. From the sounds of it, the Loreo 3D-Lens-In-A-Cap http://www.loreo.com is a much better deal than Pentax or the camera originally discussed here.

  26. Taking 3D photos is EASY by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    It's DISPLAYING them that gets difficult. To shoot, take something like a Nikon CoolPix 775 (what I use) , and put in a frame of some kind so you can slide it back and forth a few inches without changing any other dimension. Point at a static scene, snap, move over 2 inches, and snap. There you have a full stereographic representation of the scene just like your eyes would see it.

    But how to view? I was playing around with my iArt shutter glasses, researching stereo pictures, found the .jps format, and then this program (free demo for 30 pictures or so) - jpsviewer can take those two .jpg photos you just took, combine them into a format you can view with the shutter glasses using sync doubling, page flipping, etc. I was amazed at how easy it was. Turns out that some other pictures on the web were taken with the 'single camera' method because you can see some, like castles in Germany, have a car on a distant road in one eye, but not in the other eye ;))

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  27. Feh. by toothfish · · Score: 0, Troll

    Better you should actually make some 3d objects with your digital pictures. I've used this and while I'm sure that it's more of a pain in the ass than the EZ-3D gadget advertised here, it's pretty cool.

    And in the interest of full disclosure, that's my review there...

  28. Silly method by Animaether · · Score: 1

    I posted some lengthy notes on this thing at Tweakers.net quite a while ago when it first surfaced there.
    ( http://www.tweakers.net/nieuws/28494/ )

    Suffice to say that this product is much more appealing :
    http://www.3d-brillen.de/3d/produkte/kamera.php 3

    Although it's not quite a clip-on system for existing cameras, but a single-camera solution, the concept is simply.

    Split the photo frame into two halves (yes, your photos will only be half width), and have each half be exposed by a different lens at eyes-width apart.

    Many advantages such as being able to take pictures of moving objects - try that with the kludgy contraption from this article.

    The price is pretty ridiculous though, likely in part due to the viewer (again, just look at it cross-eyed. No different than reading a book up close).
    Perhaps a more standardized 52mm threaded barrel with just the mirror construction would work for most cameras with 52mm threads or conversion kits supporting it.

  29. I'm not so quick to dismiss it. by raygundan · · Score: 1

    It's not how our eyes work-- which is the *easiest* way of duplicating 3D. This is a significant image-processing task, and it may need lenses with fairly short depth of field to provide the information.

    Think of it this way-- knowing what's blurry where definitely conveys depth information. If you focus close, and something is in focus, then that object is close to you. The blurrier they get, the farther away they are. You know in 2D space on the image which parts of the blurred area correspond to which parts of the focused bits in the other picture-- and could then reliably assign a depth to them. After using the images like this to reconstruct a depth model, you end up with some sort of limited 3D model (your depth info from what's blurred where) + texturemap (all the in-focus parts from both photographs combined into one clearish image) that could be used to create a stereo pair for viewing.

    Depending on a number of things, you might need more than two pictures. Definitely a lot of post-processing to create the real image from the pair, but I think it could be done.

    Still easier to just use two cameras. Why aren't there any pocketable consumer 3D digicams? All you need is two lenses, as far apart as your eyes.

    1. Re:I'm not so quick to dismiss it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This focusing technique won't work. For instance, no matter how sophisticated your image processing software is, you'll never know what the side of the object looks like. With a slightly offset point of view, the side becomes visible.

      Two offset images ARE the way our eyes work, and therefore it is the only way to present 3d information to our brains without relying on implants or psychotropic drugs.

    2. Re:I'm not so quick to dismiss it. by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
      Our eyes are too close together to give us very much additional information about the "sides" of objects, unless they're very near the tips of our noses. Our brains reconstruct information about distance from the parallax between the two images. I suppose (but am not sure) that it's possible to compute similar information from two images using the focus technique, provided we know the tranfer function for pixels in each image, and can solve whether objects are behind or in front of the focal plane. Then it's just a matter of synthesizing a stereo pair that our eyes & brains can use.

      Of course, it's far simpler and easier to generate stereo pairs to begin with...

    3. Re:I'm not so quick to dismiss it. by raygundan · · Score: 1

      Sorry about my poor wording. It looks like I was trying to say our eyes don't work with two offset images now that i look at my post after the fact.

      What I meant was that his idea (using multiple same-location pictures with different focus) was not the way our eyes worked. Bleagh. I realize you need two stereo pairs for people-- which is why I pointed out you'd need to generate a stereo pair from whatever depth map you got.

      But you're right-- you're missing the slight bit of extra info you'd have of the sides of one of the objects. If you could do the image processing, you'd have a sort of bas-relief 3D model of the scene, but not quite enough texture map to go all the way around when you tried to render a pair of stereo images for human eyes. Very good point.

    4. Re:I'm not so quick to dismiss it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just the sides, it is also the occluded background. One eye can see quite a bit of background that is occluded by objects viewed from the other eye. Try it yourself, switch eyes and notice how much different the view is from each one.

      I suppose it could be possible for some advanced AI to essentially paint in the occluded areas from a bi-focal pair. But that kind of AI could probably just create a 3D scene from a single, well focused image. Having two known focal planes wouldn't be much better than one.

  30. have you ever given thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    to the fact that you may be obsessed with the goatse guy? posting about the man in every article is one of the symptoms. i know it's a hard sight to get over, but awareness of the problem is half the fight won.

    -well wisher, president of goatse's anonymous

  31. Captain EO by Shonufftheshogun · · Score: 2

    Remember that attraction at Disney land with Michael Jackson? That was awesome 3D and it didn't use those lame red and blue glasses. Show me how to do that with my digital camera and I'll think about it.

    1. Re:Captain EO by Aidtopia · · Score: 1

      Polarized projection. Carefully crop your images to form a proper stereo window. Convert your digital stills to slides using a film printer. (Preferrably, you can just shoot slides to begin with, since you'll get better resolution, color saturation, and dynamic range without any of the mismatched JPG artifacts.) Place the slides into a pair of slide projectors. Project through polarizing filters oriented at 45 and 135 degrees onto a silver screen. Don a standard pair of polarized glasses, and you've got stunning in-home 3D that rivals Caption EO. Optionally, you can add a couple more pairs of projectors and some sync equipment for beautiful automated slide shows.



      It's tempting to try this with modern digital projectors, but that's difficult. Many LCD projectors send out polarized light, making it impossible to use cross polarizers. And even DLP projectors would have trouble matching the brightness of a cheap, reliable Kodak Ektagraphic.

  32. build your own 3D camera for $10 by Temsi · · Score: 2, Informative

    I build and use my own 3D cameras all the time.

    I go to the corner store and buy two tiny disposable cameras and fit them together using a cardboard template I made.
    I only have to make sure the iris' have approximately the same separation as my eyes (approximately 7 cm or 2.75").

    Then I just snap the cameras simultaneously, which takes a bit of practice, but it's a snap once you get the hang of it... no pun intended.

    When I have the photos developed, I get a picture CD at the same time (saves me the hassle of scanning 2x 27 photos every time), I then bring the images into Photoshop and crop and match them if necessary.
    Thanks to the massive depth of field in these tiny cameras, almost everything is in focus, and I have a bit of leeway as to the position of the 3D convergence point.
    Then I just run the left + right photos through the free Anaglyph Maker and presto, I got my very own 3D image.
    Using two cameras means that I can shoot 3D anywhere, even pictures of moving objects or from a moving vehicle.
    Using a tripod with a movable head to shoot two images separately is rather lame IMHO, as you're forced to shoot only static setups.

    Now I just have to try this with two digital cameras small enough to fit within the approximate 7 cm separation.

    --
    -- This sig for rent.
    1. Re:build your own 3D camera for $10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7cm is actually not that important. If you take a mountain shot with 7cm base, you will practically get two equal photos. For mountain stereo you will need a greater base (I took some stereos at about 7m base :-). Then there will be some difference between the left- and right-eye pictures.

      The only thing where say 10 or 13cm is too large is macro, although this is the field where digicams are so cool :-)

      The method is this story is quite straightforward, but it is stupid to pay $125 for nothing.

      Some tips for the followers: to properly align the two positions choose some distant point and place it in the center of the viewfinder (or any other fixed point of it) for both shots. Hold the camera as horizontally as you can. Then you'll get two images that can be combined in anaglyph or viewed in cross-eye stereo easily.

    2. Re:build your own 3D camera for $10 by Temsi · · Score: 1

      Using a 7m separation creates a forced and exaggerated perspective change and is not a real representation of what you're actually looking at.
      I prefer seeing things as they are, even if the "depth" isn't as spectacular... at least it's a real representation of what I saw when I shot it.
      However, if you shoot the ground from an airplane looking down, you have nothing in the foreground as a reference, so you could technically shoot two shots several miles apart if your high enough.

      The 7 cm rule is pretty important if your subject is relatively close. If they're too close, the images will look truly bad (if you see the subject in both images at all) unless you rotate the cameras slightly towards the center, in order to move the convergence point closer (like you cross your eyes a bit because the subject is so close). Rotating the iris towards the object yields far more realistic results than just pushint the iris' closer together.
      The "reality cam" Jim and Mike Cameron designed for Ghosts of the Abyss moves the convergence point by rotating the iris in perfect sync with the focus; quite brilliant actually and looks fantastic.

      As for your tips for the followers, they're good and valid.
      The first time I did this, some of the images were shot with the camera a little off (not perfectly horizontal) and I had to align them manually in Photoshop to be able to make the anaglyph properly.

      --
      -- This sig for rent.
  33. Re:RTFA by WegianWarrior · · Score: 1

    This is /. - we don't need to read no article to dream up a plausible reply.

    I think it is due to the little known Male Answer Syndrome - the genetic disorder that lets makes guys who flunked high-school physics and haven't had a date in six months able to explain what went wrong at NASA and know what women really want.

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
  34. The LOREO "Lens in a Cap" by jamiefaye · · Score: 2, Informative

    will convert a 35mm SLR or a digital camera like the Nikon D-100 into a 3D Camera instantly.

    It is an assembly of mirrors that gathers light from two viewpoints and focuses it down onto the film/image sensor so that when it is printed out at a photo lab or on a printer, it makes a 3D card just like the ones from Victorian times.

    LOREA also makes a camera with this lens built in. It works pretty good - the only drawbacks are the long focal lengh (F11) and a blurry border between the left and right image. Some versions can also show unwanted reflections.

    I got mine for my Nikon film SLR and it works on the D-100 too!

    1. Re:The LOREO "Lens in a Cap" by jamiefaye · · Score: 1

      Here is a URL in the LOREO website, with more info on this gadget:

      http://www.loreo.com/pages/products/loreo_3dcap. ht ml

      LOREO has a number of other cool things. For example, a "Lens in a Cap" that lets you do view-camera style perspective control, one with a pinhole "lens", and another one that lets you convert your SLR into a "Point and Shoot" camera.

      http://www.loreo.com/

      LOREO is the RonCo of photo accessories!

    2. Re:The LOREO "Lens in a Cap" by DYKL · · Score: 1
      I have two 3D attachments from Loreo - the ordinary 3D Lens in a Cap and the "T" version, which is for digital SLR cameras. Most digital SLRs are non-full frame. The focal length multiplier will mess up 3D photographs taken with an ordinary 3D attachment. I've tried it. The two images are wrongly cropped and don't fuse. If you're using a D-100 you need the non-full frame 3D attachment. There are some interesting photo galleries at the Loreo website.

      IMO, the coolest thing they have is the Lite 3D Viewer. Let's you view parallel format 3D images on a computer screen.

    3. Re:The LOREO "Lens in a Cap" by DYKL · · Score: 1

      Wrong URL. Should be http://www.loreo.com/lite3dviewer.

  35. 3D splitter adapter! by cpopin · · Score: 1

    When I first read the title, I thought this was a device that would take two images (from mirrors placed apart from each other, the distance of your pupils) and combine them into your digital camera's lens, each filtered different colors (red and cyan). That way you wouldn't really need a tripod and only had to shoot one shot of a moving subject. Of course, you still must keep the camera level.

    Now that would really be a cool gadget!

    --
    -=- Many seek good nights and lose good days.
  36. My pentax does this (sorta) by technopinion · · Score: 1

    Pentax Optio 430RS has a 3D photo mode which splits the screen with a grid, you take the first picture, it shows it on the left of the viewfinder, and then you can line up the 2nd picture. It ends up being 2 shots side by side on the same frame, then you use the included viewer (not red/green) to look at the 3d image (required you to print it out first though).

  37. Why isn't there cheap 3D video? by technopinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Think about it... it's easy enough to stick two camcorders together at about eye-distance apart, record nice high quality video either on separate tapes or directly into some sort of dual-feed capture card (or maybe 2 computers). Any modern computer should have the ability to red-filter one feed and green-filter the other feed and combine them on the fly at the display, or feed them out to two separate screens in some glasses-style eyeware. Imagine watching some extreme skiing, biking, any sort of sports (or of course porn) this way!

    1. Re:Why isn't there cheap 3D video? by jayrtfm · · Score: 1

      You couldn't match the focal lengths and focus with off the shelf cameras, so the images would'nt align.

      There is a good attatchment for a standard video camera, the Nu-view

      I bought 2, it works great, good quality product.

  38. Much cheaper slide bar $35-40 by zaad · · Score: 2, Informative

    This kind of a thing is nothing new. People have been taking stereoscopic photos for years. Actually the craze was back in the 50's. Most of the stereoscopic cameras you can still buy are mostly made in the 50's with a very few exceptions.

    http://home.att.net/~drt-3d/toys/bogen/index.htm.

    David Burder made a custom stereoscopic digital camera, but as far as I know, it's not really for sale.

  39. Why not just use a spit lense? by Kenja · · Score: 1
    I use a split lense atachment to my 35mm camera to do side by side stereoscopic photography.

    http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/jpn/photography/kumon/ image/k12-10_i.jpg

    Simple idea realy, you should be able to make a simple mounting system to let you use one of these with just about any camera. Its just four mirrors in two sets of two reflecting each other to split the image at two diferent focal angles. Using photoshop, gimp or whatever you can cut the resulting image in two and drop the needed color value to use the color seperation glasses or you can use an old stereoscope viewer or stereoscopic shutter glasses.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  40. jigglevision by gniv · · Score: 1
    He's talking in the review about jigglevision as a 3-d simulation technique: basically you put the two images in a GIF animation loop. It looks funny, and not good funny.

    My question is, couldn't this technique provide realistic 3-d effects? If I could put the two images in a 60fps loop, wouldn't the eye be fooled into seeing both images at the same time and somehow giving the 3-d effect? If this works, I'm sure somebody did it before. Anyone has references? If it doesn't work, why not? Maybe I would just see a blurred image...

    1. Re:jigglevision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would see both images as one freakly blurred image.

      This technique is used with those NVIDIA 3D cards which "rotate" the images really fast on the screen, the trick being, you have to wear polarized glasses where one side will be darkened while the other is "open" and vice-versa timed to the "rotation".

      Its pretty cool.. but you'll get one heck of a headache after 15 minutes

  41. Good source for FREE 3d Photo software by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 1
    ...is Callipygian 3D

    Also, chek out their 3D Challah!

    You can view the anaglyph images with the glasses you got from "Spy Kids 3D"

    1. Re:Good source for FREE 3d Photo software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That software is great! Too bad there's no Mac version. I wrote the author a letter asking if I can have the source so I can port it and he told me to "hold my breath."

  42. Dan rules! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    off topic, blah blah blah.

    Besides slashdot, Dan's Data is my fave geek site. the dude is hyper smart, hyper funny and he really gets into his reviews and does a great job. i take his advice to heart.

    And were it not for him, I'd not have my own custom made cracker.

    Go Dan!

  43. While we're at it by _Sexy_Pants_ · · Score: 1

    I realize that this should have gone in the other thread actually about said laptop, but why not a desktop computer or just a monitor. Of course, I don't know how it works. Damn the technicalities, I'm only looking for the ends!

    --
    Look it's a joke about my sig IN MY SIG! LOL!
    1. Re:While we're at it by Form-o-Stuff · · Score: 1

      And since you already broke the holy subject rule, And how the hell would multiple people look at it in 3-D???! That laptop relies on focusing on one person, right? Or is it split down the middle? And yes, I'm too lazy to go reference that other link.

  44. Create Anaglyphs from 2D photos in Photoshop by Leeji · · Score: 1

    I went on a kick awhile back on how to make Anaglyphs from 2D photos in Photoshop. If you're mildly handy with the computer, you should have no problem :)

    --
    It all goes downhill from first post ...
  45. Oh, come on. by toothfish · · Score: 1

    Snide, maybe. Facetious, sure. Possibly worthwhile-- I thought so. I mean it's not like I tried to sneak a goatse link in or anything, and I don't work for UZR either.

    Offtopic (as this is) I could even see, but an offhanded remark about another 3D thing that is tertiarily related with a disclaimer hardly merits a troll, in my opinion.

    Jeez.

  46. Vaporware? by lord_nightrose · · Score: 0

    Does this product actually exist yet? I noticed that they talked about stunning examples of 3D photos that required those goofy glasses, but the link to their 'gallery' only took me to a page saying 'coming soon'. Seems a bit fishy that somehow a full-color photo could have 'stunning' color, and still require those glasses to be viewed.

    On another note, 3D photography is definitely nothing new. Back in the '50s, there were cameras you could buy that used a special type of film and had two lenses, spaced about three or four inches apart. Each lense recorded a separate image, and the distance simulated the distance between the human eyes. It worked pretty well; my grandparents had one. As a nice added bonus, you didn't have to wear glasses to view the photos - just look at the two images through a lit box (like an old Viewmaster), and they take on a nice pseudo-3D appearance.

    --
    This is not part of my post. It's my signature. I bet you're disappointed.