What Makes a Good Candidate Image for 2D-to-3D Conversion?
Nov 5, 2017 18:25:54 #
gmsatty wrote:
Here is one of the Lytro videos
Hi, gmsatty,
We need the link.
Dave
Nov 5, 2017 18:38:23 #
Fotoartist wrote:
This what the president of the Detroit Stereograph... (show quote)
Hi, Fotoartist,
I’m sure the fellow from the Stereographic Society is sincere and truly believes his statement, but he is in error. The two posted 3D conversions went through a simple process, not at all arduous or complicated, and both were completed within a half hour. Now, experienced stereo photographers often do not like the style of 3D images I have posted, particularly absence of the cardboard cut-out effect in close objects. But others feel 5he 2D to 3D conversion effect is more natural appearing, and like that depth separation continues into the extreme depths of the image, rather than sending somewhere in middle ground. That’s why I am writing a book on the topic.
Dave
Nov 5, 2017 19:35:23 #
Nov 5, 2017 19:36:24 #
I have a Fuji 3D camera and connect it to my 55 inch Vizio 3D TV and the pics are great. At least I don't have to get a headache from crossing my eyes!
Nov 5, 2017 20:28:24 #
Fotoartist wrote:
Google Jim Long. The date of his work was 2005.
Googled Jim Long.
He is using the relatively arduous depth mapping, rotoscoping, occlusion parallax gap-filling process which give a laudable results but which, I strongly suspect, is beyond the time investment considered reasonable by the general run of serious hobbiest photographers.
Dave
Nov 5, 2017 20:55:22 #
I'm glad you looked him up. The effort shows in his work. Truly spectacular. And quite a contribution to do it to Old Master Renaissance paintings of Raphael, Michelangelo, etc. A great use for the process. I learned a lot seeing these in a new light.
Uuglypher wrote:
Googled Jim Long.
He is using the relatively arduous depth mapping, rotoscoping, occlusion parallax gap-filling process which give a laudable results but which, I strongly suspect, is beyond the time investment considered reasonable by the general run of serious hobbiest photographers.
Dave
He is using the relatively arduous depth mapping, rotoscoping, occlusion parallax gap-filling process which give a laudable results but which, I strongly suspect, is beyond the time investment considered reasonable by the general run of serious hobbiest photographers.
Dave
Nov 5, 2017 21:00:43 #
Fotoartist,
You are missing my point. it is not to compare methods of 3D conversion. It is to compare the examples of the landscape/skyscape and of the crane in flight I posted earlier in this thread that were produced using the methods I’ve been using, with, perhaps comparable products of similar scenes and subjects with two-view stereo photography, if such exist.
Just getting this back on track.
Dave
You are missing my point. it is not to compare methods of 3D conversion. It is to compare the examples of the landscape/skyscape and of the crane in flight I posted earlier in this thread that were produced using the methods I’ve been using, with, perhaps comparable products of similar scenes and subjects with two-view stereo photography, if such exist.
Just getting this back on track.
Dave
Nov 5, 2017 21:29:48 #
You are right I strayed. But one of my points was your examples don't impress. They remind me of the "faux" 3D control on my 3D TV which simulates 3d from a 2D source. But after about 15 minutes of watching it's not satisfying enough nor comparable to real 3D TV so you switch it off. Why don't you try posting something of yours Larger so it can be seen better. That could be part of the problem.
Uuglypher wrote:
Fotoartist,
You are missing my point. it is not to compare methods of 3D conversion. It is to compare the examples of the landscape/skyscape and of the crane in flight I posted earlier in this thread that were produced using the methods I’ve been using, with, perhaps comparable products of similar scenes and subjects with two-view stereo photography, if such exist.
Just getting this back on track.
Dave
You are missing my point. it is not to compare methods of 3D conversion. It is to compare the examples of the landscape/skyscape and of the crane in flight I posted earlier in this thread that were produced using the methods I’ve been using, with, perhaps comparable products of similar scenes and subjects with two-view stereo photography, if such exist.
Just getting this back on track.
Dave
Nov 5, 2017 22:06:44 #
Certainly, some are less strong than others, but my point remains, can you gather some...oreven just two two-view stereo pairs that capture so well a 3D image of a bird in flight...that was one of about ten that were converted that days BIFs...and one better than, or even the equal of the landscape/ skyscape with converging depth recession at the horizon?
Now how would one equal either of those with a two-view capture?
Fun thing to ponder.
Perhaps some consultation with the experts at the stereo club might be in order?
Now how would one equal either of those with a two-view capture?
Fun thing to ponder.
Perhaps some consultation with the experts at the stereo club might be in order?
Nov 6, 2017 10:04:23 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.