Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Will we ever get back to 3-d images and viewing?
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
Jan 25, 2023 19:39:44   #
OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919
 
________________________(reply) (General)
The old Stereoptican card were very sharp, also. As in my original post, some makers used Goertz Dagor lenses. Some brands faded after a century---but not those from Underwood and Underwood.-----------

Reply
Jan 25, 2023 20:18:33   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
If 3D is going to really take off, somedody needs to come up with (if they haven't already) a gadget that goes on the front of a cell phone that produces a 3D image on the back. If it became popular, included in enough phones, you could send 3D images all over the place,

Holograms anyone?

---

Reply
Jan 25, 2023 20:53:43   #
OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919
 
Bill_de wrote:
If 3D is going to really take off, somedody needs to come up with (if they haven't already) a gadget that goes on the front of a cell phone that produces a 3D image on the back. If it became popular, included in enough phones, you could send 3D images all over the place,

Holograms anyone?

---

___________________________________(reply)
To make 3d really work the connection to the 3d world must be complete immersion like the old Stereopticans did with the full face card viewers. Modern sound might help as well as color. But I doubt if one can get properly immersed in the scene on a three inch screen with daylight all around?---------------

Reply
 
 
Jan 25, 2023 21:06:28   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
OldSchool-WI wrote:
___________________________________(reply)
To make 3d really work the connection to the 3d world must be complete immersion like the old Stereopticans did with the full face card viewers. Modern sound might help as well as color. But I doubt if one can get properly immersed in the scene on a three inch screen with daylight all around?---------------


There have always been doubters, just like there are those that perfer to remain years behind in technology believing old is better. It's OK, to each their own.

---

Reply
Jan 25, 2023 21:43:25   #
OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919
 
Bill_de wrote:
There have always been doubters, just like there are those that perfer to remain years behind in technology believing old is better. It's OK, to each their own.

---


__________________________________________(reply)

(To Bill De"s comment) WHAT DOES YOUR RESPONSE HAVE TO DO WITH MY CONTENTION. That for 3d to work, the viewer must be immersed in the experience of 3d and not some little hand held 3 inch display?/??------below is the exchange which was answered in a "flip" manner?-------------------(discourse below)

--------------------OldSchool-WI wrote:
___________________________________
To make 3d really work the connection to the 3d world must be complete immersion like the old Stereopticans did with the full face card viewers. Modern sound might help as well as color. But I doubt if one can get properly immersed in the scene on a three inch screen with daylight all around?---------------

Bill De's response to Old School-WI above----------
There have always been doubters, just like there are those that perfer to remain years behind in technology believing old is better. It's OK, to each their own.

Reply
Jan 25, 2023 21:49:52   #
Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan
 
selmslie wrote:
Neither approach is satisfactory for most viewers.

The cross-eyed method limits the viewing time to the amount of eyestrain you can tolerate.

With the parallel method the images can't be any wider than about 2½ inches each. Some form of optical aid can help like the 19th century holders.

Anaglyph is better than either (no size limit) but it has color issues and it works better with B&W images.


Thanks for doing the anaglyph. Yes, the original is in competing colors for anaglyph.

Reply
Jan 25, 2023 22:37:23   #
Grahame Loc: Fiji
 
Bill_de wrote:
There have always been doubters.................

Spot on.
OldSchool-WI wrote:
But I doubt..............................

Reply
 
 
Jan 25, 2023 22:57:14   #
Tote1940 Loc: Dallas
 
OldSchool-WI wrote:
As a child, I would marvel at the scenes from the world of 1900 on the 3d Stereoptican cards in our three boxes of cards. When home sick in grammar school, I would love to watch the world of "Around the World"--"Italy" (with all the statues) and--"Palestine, the Holy Land", boxes of our Underwood an Underwood cards. When I lived in DC in the late sixties, I bought items at a second hand store, run by a Mr. Kamras who told me he worked for Underwood and Underwood in 1900. I bought a 3d camera from him made by Goertz. Unfortunately it did not have the two Goertz Dagor lenses which he had previously sold. It did have the manual and all. Over the years I have been meaning to buy two identical focal length lenses and make my own cards.

So when will some manufacturer come out with a double lens digital camera and software plus either an electronic viewer or software to turn a double display image with the help of a hand held viewer to repeat history. Those cards were really great!-------------ew
As a child, I would marvel at the scenes from the ... (show quote)

One more 3 D fan, when a kid fascinated by Viewmaster slides
Currently doing 3D with Nikon D800E using old Pentax front lens device and 50 mm lens
It has mirrors to create in FX frame two sidevby side images. Manual focus but auto exposure
Actually first used on 35 mm cameras slide film, used special viewer for slide
Now those slides are scanned and on my computer monitor can see from either side by side vertical stereo pair
Use prismatic glasses to see as single 3D image, needs fixed distance nose to screen.
Currently away from home, if anyone interested next week could load photos and names of gadgets
Future plans try 3D movies and figure out how to change to 3D TV , have 3D TV with shutter glasses

Reply
Jan 25, 2023 23:05:35   #
Tote1940 Loc: Dallas
 
Here is Pentax front lens mirror device
and prismatic glasses similar to the ones I have
3D digital photos !





Reply
Jan 25, 2023 23:28:53   #
OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919
 
What on earth are you talking about "Smugmug Fiji" Do you just throw out words to see your name in print?---------------?

Reply
Jan 26, 2023 00:35:43   #
MrPhotog
 
rcarol wrote:
You have lost me. How does VR relate to 3D?


The virtual reality goggles present a different image to each eye. In this they are like stereo viewers.

Should original images, shot with proper optical spacing be viewed through VR goggles, the result would be digital 3-D viewing.

Not all VR images being made these days are designed to show stereo, but the equipment is out there.

Reply
 
 
Jan 26, 2023 06:03:11   #
dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida
 
My cellphone is as long as the separation between eyes... put a camera at teach end and... yep 3D. I have a cell phone holder that I bought at a used shop, it was designed for 3D game viewing.

"VR SHINECON Virtual Reality VR Headset 3D Glasses Headset Helmets VR Goggles for TV, Movies & Video" $28 on Amazon.

Reply
Jan 27, 2023 08:31:46   #
Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC
 
SuperflyTNT wrote:
And you need glasses.

Yes, for parallel mode most viewers usually do need reading glasses. (I am nearsighted so I just take mine off.) Without a stereoscope, though, most people have trouble getting the photos to merge. Stereo photos look unnatural and rarely get past being a novelty or conversation piece because we are used to seeing with our two eyes that are constantly moving in all directions (up/down, left/right, back and forth), placing you in the space, unless you clamp your head to a tripod which is also unnatural. With video, moving the camera or perspective point takes it to a whole other level, e.g. IMAX.

Reply
Jan 27, 2023 09:30:25   #
delder Loc: Maryland
 
dpullum wrote:
My cellphone is as long as the separation between eyes... put a camera at teach end and... yep 3D. I have a cell phone holder that I bought at a used shop, it was designed for 3D game viewing.

"VR SHINECON Virtual Reality VR Headset 3D Glasses Headset Helmets VR Goggles for TV, Movies & Video" $28 on Amazon.


Thank you for reminding me of that Cellphone Holder. I seem to remember having one in cardboard but lost track of the program/content when we moved a few years ago.

Reply
Jan 27, 2023 10:25:50   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
Retina wrote:
Yes, for parallel mode most viewers usually do need reading glasses. (I am nearsighted so I just take mine off.) Without a stereoscope, though, most people have trouble getting the photos to merge. Stereo photos look unnatural and rarely get past being a novelty or conversation piece because we are used to seeing with our two eyes that are constantly moving in all directions (up/down, left/right, back and forth), placing you in the space, unless you clamp your head to a tripod which is also unnatural. With video, moving the camera or perspective point takes it to a whole other level, e.g. IMAX.
Yes, for parallel mode most viewers usually do nee... (show quote)


Well I don’t need readers. I was referring to the anaglyph images in which the two images are superimposed and require special glasses to see, like 3D movies.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.