Re: 60 lens camera! plus 3d pics in SA magazine.

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 14:02:52 -0600
>From: P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: 60 lens camera! plus 3d pics in SA magazine.

>As mentioned last time there was an inadvertant 3d pic in this months
>Popular Science, well found more 3d pics when I was looking thru last
>months (Nov96) Scientific American magazine. You can find the article
>with pictures on page 46.
>The article describes how Dayton Taylor put together in his kitchen
>table a 60 lens camera sharing a common film. All camera shutters trigger
>simulataneously and the lens separation is aprox 1.5 inches or 10 feet 
>end to end! 

>They also mention how the pictures viewed resemble a strange 3 dimensional
>movie in which people resemble models encountered at Madame Tussaud's
>Wax Museum. This was discussed last month, how people viewing 3D pics
>find them eerie. Now imagine if the pictures they are talking about were
>viewed also in true 3D as well as viewable from different perspectives.
>My 2cents on the eerie feeling of seeing 3D frozen images is that this
>is only a temporary feeling of not being used to a new media. 

I think the eerie feeling is from the combination of having a frozen scene, 
and yet moving around in it. A conventional 2D or 3D photograph shows a 
frozen scene, but from a fixed point of view. 2D or 3D video can show a 
moving point of view, but the action (if any) is not frozen.

>So I would
>say that,stating that this should be avoided is all wet. 

I agree. It may look eerie, but it's still a very interesting phenomenon.
I believe most of the earlier discussion on choosing subjects was based on
Ferwerda's admonition regarding the conventional 2-image stereo views. They
hadn't even come up with these newfangled techniques when "World of 3D"
was written. :-)

>In any case if you don't have the Scientific American issue of Nov96, one
>can read and see the pics of the camera and snapshots at SA web site. Here
>is the link.
>http://www.sciam.com/1196issue/1196techbus5.html
>Also I have included an excerpt of the article below.  

>"...What can you do with 10 feet of cameras? "I'm wracking my brain trying
>to think about applications for this art form/technology," wrote
>Steven Spielberg to an acquaintance after witnessing a videotape of
>Taylor's invention. Taylor believes the main use will be for special
>effects in films--and, in fact, a French production company used a similar
>technique in crafting a music video for the Rolling Stones...."

I posted a comment on that video on November 2, speculating that there were
two ways it could be done: "a stereo camera with dozens of closely-spaced
lenses", or creation of a 3D computer model from a smaller number of
photographs, then computationally moving around in the model. Since I hadn't
heard of the 60-lens camera and since the company's "screen credits" mostly
involved computer imagery, I thought the latter method was the answer.

When I saw the article excerpt, my immediate reaction was that the 
first method must have been used instead. But then I got to thinking -
the article doesn't really give much information about the Rolling Stones
video. It doesn't mention Buf Compagnie by name, and just says "a similar
technique". Given that this was peripheral to the article, maybe I shouldn't
jump to conclusions about what the author was trying to convey.

I wouldn't want to misinterpret the article. The popular notion that 1950's
3D movies were all anaglyph may have originated from a misinterpretation of
a remark in an article.

I haven't seen the video lately - I don't remember whether the point of
view moved in a straight line or an arc.

BTW, the Buf Compagnie web page includes an images of the computer-generated
"M&Ms" seen in TV commercials - they may do this as part of a deal with
Will Vinton's company (Claymation), based on a news clip I came across about
that company.

(Thanks for posting the information on the article.)

John R


------------------------------