Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Oh, I certainly am aware of the Fuji camera, but have never seen one. I'm sure you've found that currently available info on Google is scanty on the technological side, and downright negative in one obviously disheartened review. My main concern is that Fuji has not had sufficient faith in that product to pursue production and sales of updated models since the model you tout came on the stage ...what...six or seven years ago?. All I can find leads me to the conclusion that its acceptance by the public was poor, and its reputation for need and accomplishment of service was likewise poor. Certainly, the need to deal with the .mpo special file format, and screen projection or display on a 3-D TV or as anagyph on other displays and monitors were additional hindrances to broad acceptance. Obviously not a good candidate for marketing success. There always seem to be some available on eBay, however, for those fascinated with what is evidently an artifact of the past.

it is, indeed, the 21st century and the two significant advancement that I've seen in stereo photography that are likely to have greater endurance than the no-longer-supported Fuji camera are the use of portable digital pads and smartphones as display devices for stereo image pairs and the development of a variety of techniques for production of stereoscopic digital pairs from appropriate single 2-dimensional mages.

Until another, more commercially successful digital stereo camera comes to the fore, I suggest that highly successful stereo imaging of stable subjects, cityscapes, and landscapes can be accomplished as simply as with a hand-held smartphone and a basic understanding of the principles of producing a stereo pair. Inexpensive views for use with smartphones are commercially available or are easily made. There certainly are far more refined sorts of equipment and techniques for stereo photography, but whether the expense is commensurate with improved results is questionable.

And yes, like you, I'm curious about how Fuji managed a display of a 3-D image without the need for special glasses.

Best regards,
Dave

Violameister Loc: michigan

Surely you have seen greeting cards and other pictures on cardboard that are seen in true 3D without glasses. There are 2 images that are composed of narrow alternate vertical strips. On top of the strips is a plastic piece with similar vertical lenticular strips. As you look at it, the lenticular strips direct the left eye to see only the left picture strips, and the right eye to see only the right picture strips. The strips are sufficiently narrow that a complete picture is seen, slightly different for each eye. The same mechanism can be made to work for an LCD display. The distance from which you view the images, of course is critical, as the interocular distance must be translated by the lenticular strips to the distance apart of the image strips.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Although they make the method of capturing the image pretty clear (two lenses) Fuji seems to be exceptionally obscure about how the images are subsequently viewed.

Nevertheless, there is no getting around the fact that the 3D effect is an illusion creating when the left and right eye view two images originally captured from two viewpoints. This is how we (and other predators) judge distance using stereoscopic vision.

Once you have used a stereo viewer (many of us did so when we were very young) the novelty soon wears off.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

quote=selmslie]

What all legitimate 3D photographic images have in common is that they are captured from two separate viewpoints using either two lenses or one lens and camera movement.

It is impossible to create a true 3D image from a single capture using only one lens.[/quote]

xxxxxxxx

Hi, Scotty,
Define "legitimate 3-D" as you wish, Scotty;but realize that every photograph, even the two that make up a traditional "stereoscopic pair" are, in fact, 2-dimensional images. Any effect perceived beyond those two dimensions are illusory, including the "3-D" we perceive with our own two eyes. You will be amazed at what has been happening in recent years with conversion of 2-D images to "3-D" still and video images.

Check out a quick summary of a fascinating challenge at::

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2D_to_3D_conversion

Dave

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

[quote=selmslie]
Once you have used a stereo viewer (many of us did so when we were very young) the novelty soon wears off.[quote]

For some the fascination endures!

Dave

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Thanks, violameister,
I do recall(but had forgotten...) not only greeting cards but a few magazine covers ( Natl Geographic ?) that used a vertically and finely ribbed plastic "lens" overlying fine alternating strips of a stereo pair to provide a 3-d effct. Your suggestion certainly sounds like a reasonable - even if not for certain factual - explanation for the "mystery" of the Fuji viewing screen. Makes a lot of sense!

Thanks,
Dave

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If you only use a single eye (or lens, like a camera) there is no such thing as a 3D image.

The entire effect (illusion) of 3D is created in our mind by looking at two images viewed from two separate vantage points. In humans that may be about 54-68 mm apart (typical pupillary distance). In other animals with binocular vision the separation may be greater or less. In any case, binocular vision makes it possible for us to pick up objects within arms reach and for other creatures to judge distance and capture prey.

Prey animals with eyes on the sides of their heads have to use other means to accomplish this 3D effect. For example, chickens and turkeys need to move their heads from side to side and integrate the information in their brains. Chameleons move their eyes separately and process this information in their own way.

No matter how you or any other animal perceives 3D, it is a process that requires two distinct vantage points and some internal processing in our brains. It cannot be artificially constructed from a single image.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

xxxxxxxxxxccccccccccc

And so sayeth Scotty...Amen ???

Depth perception is an illusion built from two visual prospectives that we learn to use to our advantage and survival benefit.
A 3-D illusion built from two camera images is a similar illusion.
A 3-D illusion constructed from a single lens image is also an illusion ...of three dimensions.
As photographers everything we do that is image related is illusion related...pretending that any two-dimensional image somehow accurately reflects a three-dimensional reality, is, of itself, illusory.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It's not an illusion. It's a delusion.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Until the parameters of any illusion are appreciated and a decision is made to accepted those parameters, every illusion is a delusion. It's a matter of thresholds, and thresholds are of considerable variance. You are arbitrarily firm in yours -and others arbitrarily firm in theirs.

if you perceive the effect of three dimensions in an image, you perceive three dimensions. The key is: what do you perceive? Do you, or do you not perceive three dimensions?

Violameister Loc: michigan

In the real world, with one eye closed you are pretty poor at estimating how far apart two objects one behind the other are. With both eyes open, you are much more accurate in your estimate. This is easily verified with proper experimental design. This result proves to me that we do indeed perceive 3 dimensions.

If now we were to repeat this experiment, only using 3D photographs, I submit the result would be similar; perhaps we would not be as good as the "real world" test, but certainly better than the one eye trial. So, again, if the experiment turns out as I expect it will, we have a real perception of the 3rd dimension. So, what we see is not an illusion.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Anyone who has ever looked through a View Master (they have been around since 1919) can easily appreciate the difference between seeing an image pair truly in three dimensions and getting the impression or illusion of three dimension from a single image. The difference is like night and day.

If you Google '3D viewing physics' you should find, "Your brain fuses the two images together allowing you to see in three dimensions. This is known as stereoscopic vision. To create a similar effect, 3D films are captured using two lenses placed side by side, just like your eyes (or by producing computer generated images to replicate the same effect)." You might also come across, "Because our eyes sit side by side, each eye captures a slightly different view. This is called binocular vision. When signals from the two eyes reach the brain, they are superimposed and processed into a single picture with depth. As a result, we get a 3D picture and are able to judge distances well."

You can also look into the history of the Stereoscope and you will see that the technique was used as far back as 1838 with drawings, before it was used for photography.

If you think you can perceive three dimension in two identical copies of a single image you are deluding yourself.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Don't be silly, Scotty, and more important, don't fall back into your habit of misquoting those with whom you disagree.
No claim has been made by me or by anyone else hat : "....you can perceive three dimension in two identical copies of a single image..."

What you don't realize that CAN be done is to process a copy of a monocular (two-dimensional) image in such a manner that it can serve as a member of a "stereo pair" of images that conveys the 3-D illusion when viewed in the same manner as are other stereoscopic pairs, by either of the two techniques of of "free merging/free viewing" or by use of one of a variety of classic stereoscopes.

Now, please, recognize that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Just as when choosing a scene to immortalize with the classic two-lens stereoscopic camera technique you would be wise to choose a scene containing as many of the classic internal cues to illusory depth perception: outline occlusion, prominant foreground details, leading lines of perspective, progressive size reduction , gradation from foreground warm color temperatures to distant cooler temperatures, and the various manifestations of atmospheric (aerial) perspective. The effects of stereoscope imaging and those of processing, adjusting, and transforming the copy of a monocular referant image are the same: to emphasize and accentuate the extant internal cues to illusory depth perception.

Tell you what, Scotty; send me a decent monocular landscape image you have made that contains good examples of some of the mentioned cues and I'll be glad to post a JPEG file of a 3-D conversion of that image able to be viewed on your monitor, portable pad, or better yet, on your smartphone for ease of free viewing or use of a stereoscope. Then you and other participants in this thread can discuss whether the conversion does or does not deliver the 3-D effect. You may, in fact, get back more than one 3-D conversion; I'm not the only one in UHH that is working with 2-D to 3-D conversions.

It will help to know if you prefer free viewing by the parallel gaze technique, or the crossed-eye technique.

The ball's in your court, Scotty!

Now I fully understand that your history suggests that you'll try to parse words and weasel word your way out of this offer, but, what the Hell...I figure it's worth it just to see your response.

Best regards,
Dave

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

My point is simply that it cannot be done without two vantage points. All you will end up with is two manipulated images from the same vantage point. You have to use a lot of imagination (or drugs) to bridge the gap.

I have already seen enough of the images you have posted to see that you have not succeeded.

I prefer not to give myself a headache.

The only stereo pair I would bother with would be a pair taken from two vantage points. Anything processed from the same vantage point using a single image is a waste of my time.

I lost my interest in 3D photography (and 3D comic books) more than 60 years ago. It was a novelty that was not worth the trouble. The novelty of 3D movies was not much more interesting.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

My point is simply that it cannot be done without two vantage points. All you will end up with is two manipulated images from the same vantage point. You have to use a lot of imagination (or drugs) to bridge the gap.




Scotty wrote:
"I have already seen enough of the images you have posted to see that you have not succeeded."

Your problem, Scotty, is that most sterio pairs I've posted are not identified as being specifically of either binocular or monocular origin

Scotty wrote:
"I prefer not to give myself a headache"

Which is why you have not appropriately viewed the presented image pairs!

Scotty wrote:
"The only stereo pair I would bother with would be a pair taken from two vantage points. Anything processed from the same vantage point using a single image is a waste of my time."

...thus proving Scotty's lack of confidence in participating in a blind comparison of the ability of the different types of stereo pairs to render a three-dimensional image.

A new thread will be initiated providing the opportunity for blind comparison of stereo images of binocular origin and stereo images of 2-D Conversion to 3-D origin as to their abilities to render the 3-D effect.