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."
I want 3D pron!!!!
Try my new smokable Sig,
It turns out you can do the same thing better, for less money
Yes.. actually going outside.
http://use.perl.org
You can always do the same thing for less money.
3D story boards for artist would be good
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)
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.
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 |
I've only got one eye!
(ps--this really is the case)
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..?
Mmmmmmmmmmmm.. I can almost taste the jizz..
mom?
Best Windows Freeware
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
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.
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?
If you thought your eyes were burning before, wait until the goatse.cx guy gets one of these units..
Trolling is a art,
Bah. For $129 you get a tripod that lets you slide the camera to a right and left eye perspective.
--
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
This DOES move one camera around the subject. It just provides a tripod with a sliding rail.
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.
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.
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.
.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 ;))
But how to view? I was playing around with my iArt shutter glasses, researching stereo pictures, found the
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I posted some lengthy notes on this thing at Tweakers.net quite a while ago when it first surfaced there.
:p 3
( http://www.tweakers.net/nieuws/28494/ )
Suffice to say that this product is much more appealing
http://www.3d-brillen.de/3d/produkte/kamera.ph
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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).
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!
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.
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?"
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...
Also, chek out their 3D Challah!
You can view the anaglyph images with the glasses you got from "Spy Kids 3D"
Best Buy can have you arrested
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!
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
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.