3D Photos

I saw a 3D picture of a Bald Eagle at the local 711 today and to tell you the truth, I was seriously impressed. The picture seemed to come to life. Does this mean the end to traditional(2D) photography ?

<p>No</p>

<p>"I saw someone peeing in Jermym Street the other day. I thought, is this the end of civilization as we know it? Or is it simply someone peeing in Jermyn Street?" <br /> — Alan Bennett</p>

<p>What kind of 3-D process Harry? Glasses? Lenticular?</p>

<p><Chas><br /><br /></p>

<p>There are always conservatives who resist change. Since, the 3d photography has not yet reached to the level of consumers. It is way far away for the 2d photography to end. but, it is a good point. need to think about 3d photography.</p>

<p>i still have my viewmaster camera and they tell me reels are again available.<br>

I almost bought a kodak 35 stereo, but the shutter was "fussy"<br>

I see stereo tv's are now sold<br>

does this mean I can get a 2d tv for less. our 15 year old crt tv is flakey.<br>

vivitar sold a plastic 35mm stereo camera.<br>

35mm film the viewer used the standard 4 x 6 prints like the old 1880's stereo.</p>

<p>Had a gentleman come down to our camera club last year and do a two hour presentation on 3D photography complete with very professionally done slideshows. Everyone in the club was thouroughly impressed. Has anyone of one us used any of what we learned that night? NO</p>

<p>Stereo has been the "next big thing" since Wheatstone (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wheatstone">link</a>) in the mid-19th century.</p>

<p>I love stereo, I collect stereo stuff too, I have a large collection of stereopticon cards, Viewmaster reels, own a Stereo Realist camera, a Qdos anaglyphic stereo zoom lens, and so on.</p>

<p>But I will buy a stereo TV at the point where at least 50% of homes have one.</p>

<p>I predict that it will only really become common when it is viewable in full color without glasses or special lenses, etc. Hopefully with higher resolution than R2-D2 was capable of.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't know about still frame pictures but I was blown away by Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. I watched it in 3d and for that matter twice. Albeit, to be entirely honest, the allure of the story, the costumes and how pretty Alice was made more of an impression on me and the 3d aspect merely padded my curiosity.<br>

Does 3d photography require special glasses? If the viewing experience requires special apparatus, I don't think it would have the immediacy of happy snapping that really makes photography poor. For exhibitions and amateur enthusiasts it might take off but am not sure the clubber would be too concerned about seeing their blurred images even more blurred.</p>

<p>This website lets you create your own 3d images. Results vary.<br>

start3d.com</p>

If you are speaking of a photo that you hold in your hand and it looks 3D without glasses, it is a lenticular photo. I saw my first lenticular photo back in the 1970s. It was of some roses and I swore that I could slide my fingers behind the flowers. It sort of boggled my mind. I still see that occasionally on greeting cards. It was supposed to be the coming thing and some people would buy cameras such as the Nishika N8000 lenticular camera. It did take special processing. I believe this company still does that lenticular processing:

 

http://www.snap3d.com/index.html

<p>Anything you can watch without glasses is not the real future. Not in sight for a long time. Too confining as to viewing location. Except for handhelds and some games. But who knows. Is there a future in real adult and I mean intelligent movies is my more interesting question..the economics of movie distribution make movies for youth the only break even ones. Digital distribution and display is already in progress and film reels will be out for good.<br>

But if you are talking just <em>still</em> photography, it will make inroads is all and no revolution. I don't really much like revolutions anyway...too fatiguing.</p>

<p>Recently I saw some photos with more than just 3D, I saw photographs which moves when your turn your head into different directions, possibly they are more than one image printed on a special materials, they also come in large sizes and format, not expensive and to not take a long time to get them done, all you need is to go that shop at the Dragon Mule with you selected photographs and they do them for you.</p>

<p>I am not sure if this sort of printing is called 3D or do have another technical terms for it.</p>

<p>Photography as we know it will not be the same in fifteen years. Some of us will still be doing the same thing, just like some us are still buying vinyl records. Fifteen years ago not too many people were doing digital. I think that more and more people will start going to digital images to hang on the wall, why have one image when you can have 100s. I have a small digital frame at work and people can't keep their eyes of it, especially the younger crowd. Those digital frames will allow 3D to become the next future.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know about still frame pictures but I was blown away by Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. I watched it in 3d and for that matter twice. Albeit, to be entirely honest, the allure of the story, the costumes and how pretty Alice was made more of an impression on me and the 3d aspect merely padded my curiosity.<br />Does 3d photography require special glasses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>3D photography doesn't require special glasses, but 3D viewing does, whether it be polarized, via a special viewer, or lenticular filter over the print itself, in order to make sure each eye sees the view intended for it. Normally 3D photography requires two views, more or less replicating the differing views of our own two eyes. Ironically, "Alice in Wonderland" was NOT shot in 3D, but digitally converted after the fact. Same with "Clash of the Titans," albeit poorly from what I've read. "AVATAR" was shot (and natively rendered) in true 3D.</p>

<p> And don't discard film-based motion picture presentation just yet; recently, Technicolor introduced a 35mm 3D system for modern 3D, and both "Clash of the Titans" and "How To Train Your Dragon" are currently being shown in 3D FILM as well as digital around the country! The Technicolor system is basically an updated version of the Stereovision system of the 1970s-80s, taking advantage of modern filmstocks and optics, all for a fraction of the cost of any digital 3D system, making it very attractive for smaller cinema chains and single screen owners. Another compay, Oculus3D is doing the same thing with a different 35mm film format. Reports on the quality compared with digital are very favorable. Back to the Future!</p>

<p> Like others here, I LOVE 3D and stereophotography! It's been my experience that people overwhelmingly prefer the impact of my stereo images, but aren't interested in doing it themselves due to the extra cost and inconvenience in viewing. However, I have revived the 1950s practice of offering a package of 3D wedding stereo slides with viewer. I guess as long as they don't have to do it themselves, they love it too! If 3D was no more involved to produce than 2D, it would have been the norm by now, IMO.</p>

<p> Harry, I'm also curious to know how the eagle photo was presented. Usually, I've been disappointed with lenticular 3D images, but back in the 1950's, the Paul Hesse Studios produced probably the best lenticulars ever, done by photographer Harvey Prever. Whatever technique he used died with him. It's possible that a half century later, computers are finally able to catch up with what Mr. Prever knew!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Look at the market and economics for answers. Sony is soon to be selling 3-D TVs with shutter type glasses, sequential frame for those who understand such things. Now Sony also produces movies and they now make sophisticated cameras. Does anyone <em>doubt</em> that Sony will make a digital camera and a digital movie camera for buyers to use and show 3-D photos on their Sony TVs. I have no doubt that in a couple years,before we realize it,it will happen and not a landslide but a groundswell.<br>

Will customers "revolt" at having to put on a pair of glasses at home to watch a 3-D epic...that I don't know I would do it at home as I do it for a well done movie like Avatar..<br>

Script." Honey, I can't find the remote, and darn, who hid my 3-D glasses again?.."<br>

If there is money in it and there is, and as HDTV becomes a commodity Walmart item,the players look for some hot thing to get, like the iPAD...someone will surely make a lenticular 3-D version of the handheld tablet to get one step ahead of the pack.<br>

Hillary, I have to believe gelatin film reel distribution, each reel costs 1000 a pop you know not counting freight, is slowly gradually on the way out. ( i am kinda sorry in a way) So says Edward J. Epstein, Film Economist, on PBS Fresh Air Wed-- check npr/ freshair/com website for his interview-, as theaters are able to afford to convert. Digital is way way cheaper...<br>

Tell them you read it here lol....aloha, gs</p>

<p>The only thing I have to add to the discussion is that, until they come up with a 3D medium that dose not require stereo vision, I, for one, will be hoping and praying that 3D does not become the norm. Having very limited vision in my left eye due to spinal meningitis at age 18 months, I've become so right eye dominant that I might as well be completely blind in my left eye. All of the current 3D technology that I've seen just looks blurry to me and gives me a headache.</p>

<p>Gerry, thanks for the link! I agree that 3D film may very well be a temporary stopgap measure, but it will extend the usefulness of film distribution for a bit more time. Equipping for 3D film right now is about one-tenth that of any digital 3D. Digital saves money only for the studios and distributors, as cinemas are forced to invest in high maintanence (and early obsolescence) digital projectors, and are now charged a "virtual print fee." Gotta love Hollywood accounting techniques! Last I heard, for a sizable feature to be released on film, the cost is between $1500-$3000 per print, not quite so much as Mr. Epstein says, but it could very well be climbing due to more limited print runs.</p>

<p>Fujifilm recently released a 3D digital P&S camera, and Panasonic offers an HD 3D video camera on special order. Both are currently pricey for my very limited budget, but we all know that will change as well. I can't imagine a time (maybe the 1950s) where "3D" has gotten more attention. Crest is even making a 3D toothpaste!</p>

<p>Cory, I appreciate your concern. I hope that 2D versions continue to be made available for those unable or uninclined to watch 3D. What have you watched in 3D? I'm wondering if different processes (RealD, Dolby, IMAX) might have different effects, as each has its own unique methods of display. I once did a 3D slideshow and one person refused the polarized glasses. I wanted to explain that even if she couldn't see in 3D, the glasses would give her one clear image rather than a jumble of both, but she wasn't interested at all. Maybe she has experienced the same problems as you have in the past. </p>

<p>Budget is absolutely a compelling thing for us amateurs.<br /> In the event it adds to the discussion I will show a photo of a film stereo camera that was widely sold and is widely available today along with a brand new film cutter I bought from Dr T George Themelis. Viewers are harder to find,but not that hard. I just bought a green button Realist viewer on KEH for about 80 dollars, EXC.<br /> The junk in this table top array comes to less than a mid range DSLR with lens.<br /> As far as the time of mounting, availability of E6 processing, the demise of Kodachrome the ultimate storage medium, the little slip in adapter for flash which is not visible in this shot, that is up to the buyer to decide.<br /> I look forward to one day not far off digitizing my chromes for LCD display (not cards thank you) when it is practical to do so..<br /> Cheers and aloha gs<br /> George Themelis who uses the Fuji btw says it will probably always be a nichelike thing for the hobbyist, but then so are panorama shots. Big tent this imaging photo world and glad of it as I am sure we all are. Yes, movie financing is WAY beyond my ken,Hillary but intriguing to know about,like fancy derivates or whatnot.</p><div></div>

<p>I add that I saw "Avatar" in two slightly different processes, I did not note which is which, who notices, and there was a difference. The modern digital projection seems to have licked the problem of low light control,all look nice and bright compared to typical film polarized projection in the old days. I paid three dollars for the privilege of getting the circular polarized glasses. Felt the experience was worth it. I will not see Alice, and never contemplate Clash of the Titan, give me a break. I saw the Harry Hamlin and Olivier version and I know that Medusa gets it in the chops :-)</p>

<p>Ha Gerry, I could almost recreate your still life here! Unfortunately, for Christmas, I presented my Stereo Realist Manual to someone I'm bringing into the cult. :) And George (Dr. T) is the man when it comes to this stuff. Reading about his recent conversion to digital sent shivers down my spine. Surely <em>something </em>must be freezing over. He's been quite the advocate of stereo film photography. I'll stick with the economical Realist and slide film until I can't get it anymore. And there is still one roll of Kodachrome 64 left in the fridge, which will be shot well before the Dec. 31 deadline. </p>

<p>You might be surprised to hear that both the Technicolor and Oculus 3D film-based systems demonstrably throw MORE light on the screens than the current digital systems! The big difference this time over the 1980s incarnation is that the companies make sure the systems are set up to their own specs. I've read plenty of horror stories from the 1980s 3D, which was often done wrong as much as right. Maybe it's because our familiarity with stereo photography, but I have no interest in seeing any of the "converted" movies. Genre notwithstanding, I found the (real) 3D in "The Final Destination" very well done. That NASCAR race at the beginning...WOW! Now we are interested in seeing the new IMAX film, "Hubble 3D." IMAX 3D is by far the best 3D I've ever seen! They don't have to worry about the dreaded "stereo window!" ;p</p>