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: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk
- From: P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:00:09 -0700
> P3D <mol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Comments:
> I called some of the images
>Holograms because in fact they were *not* derived from stereo pairs. These
>were actually single frames subjected to a lump of a software called 'Double
>VIsion' which is normally used to combine stereo pairs into a single
>composite 3d Image. I cheated the software by using the same image for each
>right/left source image and by mis-aligning the reference point used to
>combine the two images. Theresult then produces a flat but projected image
>somewhere in front of the surface of the monitor.
********* OUCH!!!! Not only are those most definitely NOT HOLOGRAMS, they
aren't even stereo views! Projecting a view stereographically in front of
your screen is realtively easy to do, but the big question is, WHY BOTHER
doing it with a flat image? Far more absurd is calling such a thing a
Hologram, which it is not, even by stretching the imagination. A
stereographic view, whether behind the screen or projected in front of it is
far closer to imitating a hologram than a flat projection!
> Not certain why this is. I think it is because of the conversion to
>JPEG or GIF format from an original TIFF source.
***************** All of your color images have extremeley poor coloration.
Get some good software and learn how to work with it. It doesn't take
expensive software, just knowledgable usage. All of us use GIF or JPG images
without the poor coloration seen on your pages. A big part of the problem is
that you have a serious vertical misalignment of left and right in 90% of
your images. Your title image is way off. If that's the best *Double-Vision*
can do, it's not very good. Try PhotoShop or PhotoStyler, either does a much
better job!!!!!
You instruct visitors that the red and blue glasses are used with the red
over the left eye, but in all your 3D glasses illustrations you show the red
on the right. Are you trying to confuse people?
>The trouble with creating images on the web is that of keeping file size
>small. Original images lose a lot of impact through shrinking and
>re-processing.
******************** But not nearly as much problem as vertical
misalignment (of left and right), poor coloration, extremely blurry images,
and poor image composition.
>
>Once again, thanks for the feedback. I am very interested in 3D and have
>therefore created a lot more material on our site using 3d techniques.
>Perhaps you can take a look at our 3D Planet Scopers section which is
>completely in 3d and is about to benefit from 3D moving images on the pages
>themselves. It is very different in its concept and design... and I'm sure
>very controversial too :-)
********************* Please learn about 3D if you are interested in it.
Anaglyphic images are not the only 3D available. Please do not use the word
Hologram to represent a poor rendition of a flat image projected in
anaglyphic format. There is no comparison. NONE of your images are
holographic in any sense at all.
Planet Scopers -- Could be interesting but... the background is way too
blurry, bad coloration makes it worse. There is way too much hype about the
dangers!!! A simple warning about nudity and adult topics is all that's
necessary. All of the images suffer from vertical misalignment and poor
color separation. There were lots of typos all over the place. IF the colors
are corrected and the misalignment is corrected, the 3D arrangements of flat
images might become somewhat interesting. A couple of them seem promising.
All of your color images (as different from your B&W images) were extremely
poor to look at. If all you can do well is the B&W images, then convert all
to B&W before making the anaglyphic images. It will look SOOOO MUCH
BETTER!!! If you must use video frames, try to sharpen them first. The
blurriness is terrible.
Why present 3D views of compressed, flattened slides? You could use fully
shaped subjects and have true 3D images, at least with fleas, plant
cross-sections and other close-ups. Perhaps not with all subjects but 3D is
about solid depth being made visible. A 3D view of something flat is just
another flat view.
I did enjoy several of the images and they were mostly B&W ones. The
Silverfish was an improvement over all others in that grouping. The Sea
Urchin was great. The SEM images were generally the best. The photos of
microscopes were good.
The concept is grand but there are lots of technical improvements needed on
the whole site, both images and text composition.
Larry Berlin
Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
------------------------------
|