Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D
|
|
| Notice |
|
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
|
|
Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1271
- From: P3D Kevin D. Clay <mytang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1271
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:42:40 -0400
photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> PHOTO-3D Digest 1271
>
> Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) CHEEPO slide scans
> by P3D <lasmart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 2) 2D to 3D Conversion
> by P3D <ericr@xxxxxxxx>
> 3) Slide Scanner
> by P3D Alexa R.W. Smith <arws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 4) Re: Realist film cutter
> by P3D Michael Kaplan <mkaplan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 5) Re: Guillotine cutters?
> by P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 6) Digest 1267
> by P3D Terry A. Mills <tamills@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 7) future NSA show dates
> by P3D Richard A Wood <JSRAW2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 8) Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1269
> by P3D Bob Howard <bobh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 9) StereoPlotter for 3D-Studio
> by P3D Yannick Corroenne <yc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 10) Dr. T gets shocked
> by P3D <JGoldenRRP@xxxxxxx>
> 11) re: stereovision question
> by P3D Jim Crowell <crowell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 12) Re: stereovision question
> by P3D Jim Crowell <crowell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 13) Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1267
> by P3D Jim Crowell <crowell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 14) Re: Digest 1267
> by P3D John Bercovitz <bercov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 15) Re: stereovision question
> by P3D Josh Rubin <jnr@xxxxxxxxx>
> 16) Re: 2D to 3D Conversion
> by P3D Josh Rubin <jnr@xxxxxxxxx>
> 17) Re: Slide Scanner
> by P3D Josh Rubin <jnr@xxxxxxxxx>
> 18) Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1270
> by P3D Yiing Lin <ylin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 19) Re: stereovision question
> by P3D Josh Rubin <jnr@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: 8 Apr 96 11:10 EST
> From: P3D <lasmart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: CHEEPO slide scans
> Message-ID: <9604081111.aa18865@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> George, et al.
>
> I posted a few weeks ago about economical slide scanning. I
> have since come upon a low-cost, low-tech, low-res solution
> which is fine for video-res and screen display (not so
> higher-res Photoshop work).
>
> I just slapped a prized slide down on my mini-lightbox and
> set my beloved, no-frills Sony Snappy camcorder on a tripod
> over it. I put an American Science & Surplus acromat over
> the dinky lens, cranked the tripod into focus, and snapped
> it through the VLAB framegrabber on my beleaguered Amiga.
>
> Those of you with mainstream PeeCees & SVHS/HI-8 and,
> say, a Snappy, will get better results. It's less than a
> third of the resolution, but only a tenth of the cost.
>
> LS
>
> "ESCHEW OBFUSCATION"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:47:42 -0400
> From: P3D <ericr@xxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 2D to 3D Conversion
> Message-ID: <199604081547.LAA45230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Anyone have info on the 2D to 3D conversion process. I've been to the 3D
> WEB site and e-mailed Mr. Mannle to no avail.
>
> Also, any info on the extrapolation process whereby two images can be used
> to produce four. I wrote to Kodak but got no reply.
>
> Assistance is appreciated.
>
> ********************************************************
> Eric Rayboy
> 7361 NW 36 Street, Lauderhill, FL 33319-4901
> Internet: ericr@xxxxxxxx Voice: (305) 748-3403
> ********************************************************
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 10:58:42 -0500
> From: P3D Alexa R.W. Smith <arws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Slide Scanner
> Message-ID: <316937b248b0002@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> >Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 19:36:24 -0400
> >From: P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Slide scanner for under $1000?
> >Message-ID: <199604072336.TAA26547@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> George, We just got a slide scanner at work for about $1200 (Univ. price) I
> believe and it is pretty good. You might want to call the company and get some
> literature on it. We are using it for scanning slides in for dental
> presentations. It is a Polaroid SprintScan 35. Hope this helps! Alexa
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:47:15 -0400 (EDT)
> From: P3D Michael Kaplan <mkaplan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Multiple recipients of list <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Realist film cutter
> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960408124555.9680A-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I'll join George in voting for the Realist cutter. It's a superb piece of
> equipment, if you can find one.
>
> ===================================
> Michael Kaplan
> Associate Professor of Architecture
> University of Tennessee, Knoxville
> mkaplan@xxxxxxx
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 10:07:08 PDT
> From: P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Guillotine cutters?
> Message-ID: <9604081707.AA20106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > Aside from collectables like the Realist mounting kit, what other
> > guillotine cutters are available which would work for my (our) purpose.
> > Do i have to spend $30 at Reel-3D or is there an alternative? My local
> > pro camera/supplies store (Abbey in Phila) doesn't have anything.
>
> Just ask for 35-mm film cutting gizmos. I've a nice lit one with a
> magnifier made by Hama that I got for something like $5 (used) including a
> large box of Hama (2D slide) mounts (which Dr. T.'s halogens will fit into,
> it uses two 'C' cells). I've also an older Polaroid one (w/o lighting)
> that works nicely with polaroid slide mounts (beamsplitter slides....). At
> least the Hama one is in Shutterbug ads. They have been pretty common at
> camera swap meets that I've attended.
>
> You can put a calibrated mark for realist format yourself if you want, or
> just eyeball each one....
>
> The only thing special about a realist format cutter is the spacing (a mark
> on the cutter) -- other than that, it's the same as any other 35mm film
> cutter which *shouldn't* be too hard to find. Theoretically. :-)
>
> Mike K.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 13:23:23 -0400 (EDT)
> From: P3D Terry A. Mills <tamills@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Digest 1267
> Message-ID: <199604081723.NAA23463@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hello again,
> Did my mail reader do it again? Did digest 1267 come out or was it eaten
> whole by my mail reader. If it did come out, and anyone has a copy of it,
> could you send a copy to me? I keep all digests on file to re-read many
> times. Thanks in advance.
> Rev T.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 10:04:49 -0800
> From: P3D Richard A Wood <JSRAW2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: future NSA show dates
> Message-ID: <01I3AMTY60MMAG29T5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Anyone else tired of having NSA conventions held during the summer only?
> April, or May. Who decides?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 11:55:18 -0700
> From: P3D Bob Howard <bobh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1269
> Message-ID: <31696116.17A4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> RE: Cutters for 35mm e.g. mounting stereos. Ted Gosfield
>
> (After checking to make sure I am not attaching the digest as a quote!)
> Check in any good camera shop for the Polaroid accessories for mounting
> the "instant 35mm" film. They have a small cutter that is fine for the
> job. There is an automated cutter of 2x2 slides by some of the mounting
> kit makers but this is too complex to use for small frame. BobH
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 22:22:08 +0200
> From: P3D Yannick Corroenne <yc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 101367.1546@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: StereoPlotter for 3D-Studio
> Message-ID: <1.5.4b12.32.19960408202208.00679588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This is a mail I received a while ago.
> Perhaps it may interest some 3D-Studio users.
>
> >
> >From: italo <italo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Organization: Laboratorio de Matematica Aplicada - UFRJ - Brazil
> >Subject: StereoPlotter
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> > I'm a university student and I've made a software to see 3D-Studio(c)
> files (.ASC) in stereo (anaglyphic)
> > way , if is it interesting to you send me a mail because there aren't yet
> english version of my StereoPlotter
> > web page !
> >
> > http://www.labma.ufrj.br/~leguas/StereoPlotter.html
> >
> > ok ?!?!
> >
> >
> > Thanks !
> >
> >
>
> +-----------------------/--------------------/------------------------------+
> Yannick Corroenne / yc@xxxxxxxxxxx / http://www.imaginet.fr/~yc
> +---------------------/--------------------/--------------------------------+
> French Stereo-Club member since 1499 (or was it 1994 ?...)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 16:30:00 -0400
> From: P3D <JGoldenRRP@xxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Dr. T gets shocked
> Message-ID: <960408162959_465089909@xxxxxx>
>
> In addition to Bill Davis' comments on the charge George.....that is very
> little for what you are getting.....if the hotel hires Union
> electricians....consider the charge reasonable.....I wont even mention the
> costs I've run into at other shows. Jon Golden Trade show survivor!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:38:34 -0800
> From: P3D Jim Crowell <crowell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: re: stereovision question
> Message-ID: <v02130502ad8eb7987f8b@[128.32.90.29]>
>
> At 11:59 PM 4/7/96, P3D Michael Kaplan wrote:
> >
> >I don't believe stereo perception requires two eyes. All it requires is
> >one eye receiving disparate images. As I mentioned a year or so ago, I
> >trained myself to view lenticular images *stereoscopically* by rotating
> >the lenticular print in front of a single eye. Anyone can perform this
> >experiment. I used an Imagetech demo print that had an unusual amount of
> >depth, including a bubble extending past the "window."
> >
>
> That is depth perception, but it ain't stereo (which does by
> definition require two eyes). The depth cue you're referring to
> is called motion parallax. At an abstract, mathematical level
> it is identical to stereo (you can describe motion parallax as
> stereo with two eyes displaced in time as well as space, or
> stereo as one eye moving back & forth at infinite speed), but in
> the brain they're supported by rather different mechanisms. Up
> to a point, anyway; there's probably some level at which the two
> converge.
>
> -Jim C.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Jim Crowell
> School of Optometry
> 360 Minor Hall
> University of California
> Berkeley, CA 94720-2020
> (510) 642-7679
> jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://john.berkeley.edu/IndividualPages/jim.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:38:32 -0800
> From: P3D Jim Crowell <crowell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: stereovision question
> Message-ID: <v02130501ad8eb4f0dfe8@[128.32.90.29]>
>
> At 10:02 PM 4/6/96, P3D John Bercovitz wrote:
>
> >I'm
> >curious how stereo vision is done in the brain. I was just
> >thinking that folks whose eyes don't track together don't have
> >stereo vision. Sounds reasonable on the surface, but why? It
> >can't be because they can't compare views at all since they still
> >have two views, so it must be that somehow the retinas are
> >hardwired to the same loci in the brain? I think I've heard that
> >before. Assuming that's true, how are the comparisons between
> >images made? I would think it would start on a "pixel" level.
>
> John,
>
> here's something I yanked from the archive--someone's question & my reply.
>
> >Others here have reported higher rates of stereoblindness, so I don't
> >know. The other interesting part of the tape involved the development
> >in infants of stereo vision. Julesz said that there is a small window
> >(about 5 or 6 weeks long) somewhere around 6 months of age (I can't
> >remember the details) in which an infant's brain learns stereo vision.
> >If the infant doesn't have this experience (such as if it has severe
> >cross-eyedness during this time period), he/she will always be stereo-
> >blind for the rest of their lives. He had a device made for cross-eyed
> >babies that optically provides the eyes with correct views for use
>in
> this training period. I have never heard of this anywhere else. >
> >Ron Doerfler
> >
>
> Yes, there's a lot of relatively recent 'way cool research on how the
> brain gets wired up. In adults, stereo is mediated by neurons in visual
> cortex that take inputs from specific locations (with a specific
> disparity) in the two eyes. In babies, these neurons take inputs from a
> range of locations in both eyes; there is a sensitive period in which
> they are tuned by correlated patterns of inputs in the two eyes. This
> requires that the input regions for a given cell in the two eyes point
> to a common region of space. If the baby's cross-eyed enough, this
> doesn't happen, & the neurons end up taking input from one eye only.
> The connections from the other eye are lost, so correcting the
> cross-eyedness later doesn't help.
>
> >After local differences are noted, how is a global "picture"
> >constructed?
>
> This is not very well understood. Certainly not at the brain
> level; there are abstract algorithm-level theories, but they're
> hard to test given that we don't completely understand the early
> stages...
>
> >I know there is a lot of preprocessing done at the
> >retinal level and I wonder what the picture looks like when it
> >first comes to the brain on the optic nerves.
>
> That's an enormous question, I'd have to refer you to a
> textbook. A good, recent, & relatively inexpensive one is by
> Brian Wandell of Stanford; I think it's called "Foundations of
> Vision". Highly recommended. Unfortunately, it concentrates
> pretty much on what's known about the early stages of visual
> processing & I don't think it has anything on stereo. I'll take
> a look tonight, my copy's at home.
>
> -Jim C.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Jim Crowell
> School of Optometry
> 360 Minor Hall
> University of California
> Berkeley, CA 94720-2020
> (510) 642-7679
> jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://john.berkeley.edu/IndividualPages/jim.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:38:35 -0800
> From: P3D Jim Crowell <crowell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1267
> Message-ID: <v02130503ad8eb87eb584@[128.32.90.29]>
>
> At 10:53 AM 4/6/96, P3D wrote:
> >>Isn't this what a lenticular print does? The camera has 3 or 4
> >>(or 9, or whatever) lenses, so as you move your head from side
> >>.to side you see different pairs of views. Though it always
> >>seems to alternate between true and pseudo stereo...
> >
> > Is motion parallax enhanced by the speed of objects or do the
> >strongest ques come from travel distance.
> >
> > The core question is If we see a limited amount of motion
> >parallax in a given scene can this be multiplied or enhanced
> >by replaying it over and over or at least give a still viewer more
> >depth information?
> >
>
> That's a good question & I'm afraid I don't know the answer off
> the top of my head. My guess would be that if either one
> (displacement or speed) gets too extreme (either on the large or
> the small side) the thing breaks down & you don't see depth. In
> the intermediate range, I don't know which is more critical.
>
> -Jim C.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Jim Crowell
> School of Optometry
> 360 Minor Hall
> University of California
> Berkeley, CA 94720-2020
> (510) 642-7679
> jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://john.berkeley.edu/IndividualPages/jim.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 14:32:47 -0700
> From: P3D John Bercovitz <bercov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Digest 1267
> Message-ID: <199604082132.OAA27726@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> If you need a back digest sent you, I'm generally the moderator
> who'll send it to you (they trust me with that job 8-). If you
> can't remember my name/address, just send a note to:
> 3d-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In fact, that address is good for any problems you have with the
> list. If you need help changing addresses or mode of receipt -
> anything. Well, we don't have a padre but other than that we can
> handle it. 8-)
>
> John B
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 17:49:52 -0400 (EDT)
> From: P3D Josh Rubin <jnr@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: stereovision question
> Message-ID: <199604082149.RAA02360@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Michael Kaplan writes:
>
> > I don't believe stereo perception requires two eyes. All it requires is
> > one eye receiving disparate images. As I mentioned a year or so ago, I
> > trained myself to view lenticular images *stereoscopically* by rotating
> > the lenticular print in front of a single eye. Anyone can perform this
>
> Another demonstration is the autostereo TV pictures
> which were taken with a camera that tracks (pans? dollies?)
> (i.e, the camera shifts) from left to right
> subtly, perhaps once or twice per second. This creates
> a very real perception (and "sense") of depth.
>
> Josh
>
> Joshua N. Rubin (jnr@xxxxxxxxx)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 17:54:17 -0400 (EDT)
> From: P3D Josh Rubin <jnr@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: 2D to 3D Conversion
> Message-ID: <199604082154.RAA03183@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> > Anyone have info on the 2D to 3D conversion process. I've been to the 3D
> > WEB site and e-mailed Mr. Mannle to no avail.
> >
> > Also, any info on the extrapolation process whereby two images can be used
> > to produce four. I wrote to Kodak but got no reply.
>
> > Eric Rayboy
>
> Eric -
>
> I won't presume to speak for either Bob or Kodak, but
> I imagine that the technology is proprietary and valuable and people
> don't want to give it away because it's income.
>
> Josh
>
> Joshua N. Rubin (jnr@xxxxxxxxx)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 17:56:33 -0400 (EDT)
> From: P3D Josh Rubin <jnr@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Slide Scanner
> Message-ID: <199604082156.RAA03567@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> >George, We just got a slide scanner at work for about $1200 (Univ. price) I
> >believe and it is pretty good. You might want to call the company and get some
> >literature on it. We are using it for scanning slides in for dental
> >presentations. It is a Polaroid SprintScan 35. Hope this helps! Alexa
>
> Also, I think the Nikon Coolscan has a street price now of
> about 1200. Nikon now has a jazzier version.
>
> Josh
>
> Joshua N. Rubin (jnr@xxxxxxxxx)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 18:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
> From: P3D Yiing Lin <ylin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1270
> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960408180330.9781A-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hello,
>
> Looking @ the MacSystems Warehouse catalog (all 35mm slide scanners):
>
> Minolta scanner: 2820 dpi ................... $1699
> Polaroid scanner: 2700 dpi .................. $1699
> Microtek scanner: 3656 dpi (interpolated) ... $749
>
> I'm not sure why the last one is 1/2 the price of the others.
>
> These are in a Mac catalog (I'm not sure what type of computer you have,
> Dr. T), but they're all probably configurable for any type of system.
>
> Also, you may find better prices in the Computer Shopper "magazine" (if
> you've the patience to look through it all).
>
> -Yiing
>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 1996 photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Slide scanner for under $1000?
> >
> > OK, I got a new computer (right on time to do the taxes...) and have decided
> > on the printer... Now, in a money spending spree, I am looking at scanners.
> > Since most of my work is with color slides, is there any way to find a
> > reasonable slide scanner? Any other alternatives for scanning my stereo
> > slide images?
> >
> > George Themelis -- Still shipping packages from the Jan. 29th sale and
> > hopelessly behind in repairing viewers and filling new orders...
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 18:10:22 -0400 (EDT)
> From: P3D Josh Rubin <jnr@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: stereovision question
> Message-ID: <199604082210.SAA05800@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Jim Crowell writes:
>
> > is called motion parallax. At an abstract, mathematical level
> > it is identical to stereo (you can describe motion parallax as
> > stereo with two eyes displaced in time as well as space, or
> > stereo as one eye moving back & forth at infinite speed), but in
> > the brain they're supported by rather different mechanisms. Up
> > to a point, anyway; there's probably some level at which the two
> > converge.
>
> I recall from my undergrad days that there are
> feature detectors, including motion detectors,
> at the retina, or at least in the optic nerve,
> at least in frogs. But I betcha that the depth cues
> from motion parallax, even though monocular,
> occur "after" the convergence of the two
> optic nerves. That being the case (if it is),
> why wouldn't it be adaptive for the binocular
> mechanisms to be available to parse and
> interpret monocular stimuli?
>
> Josh
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1271
> ***************************Unsubscribe
------------------------------
End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1278
***************************
|