P3D Re: Starosta Phantograms

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)]

>From: Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>
...
>Only hitch is that these images are a solitary experience.  There is
>only one proper viewing position, so only one person at a time can

Well, yes and no.  It is true that there is only one spot in space, where
the image is undistorted.  But in the crush of people at the opening,
trying to get people to stick to this spot was impossible.  In fact, people
really enjoyed the distortion that would move around, as they moved around.
Most people loved moving their heads around, walking closer to the image,
then backing away, etc.

Also, the life size phantogram is so large, that a fair amount of error is
permissible.  In other words, the distortions are not so bad within about
two feet of the "seet spot."  That helps.

>play.  (And no cutting in line, please!)  How did you set up the
>"viewing station"?  Did anyone try standing beside the figure to
>enhance the illusion?  Give us more details ASAP!

The viewing station was set up to allow access to the image from only the
approximately correct location.  (i.e. it is otherwise hidden from view).
This was good for the opening, as it kept people physically off the piece,
and helped them to see it correctly.  I'm going to try and move it out more
into the open for the rest of the exhibit - because now the problem is you
can't see it from the main gallery area, so it attracts no attention all by
itself, and a lot of visitors just plain miss it.

My smaller phantogram was displayed with visibility from all angles.  And
it is from all angles that people tried to view it!

>Bruce (Let Me Entertain You) Springsteen

And thanks for mentioning phantograms on this list to begin with!  Without
discussing these with you, I would never have stumbled into this idea!


and...

>From: Marcus Warrington <marcusw@xxxxxxxxx>
...
>Boris wrote ;
>
>>The 1/4 scale print needed a totally different camera setup - for example,
>>I shot it with an interaxial separation of about 9.5 inches.  And the thing
>>to remember is that you can only shoot for a given size phantogram.  That
>>is, they cannot be enlarged or reduced significantly without introducing
>>odd distortions into the perceived 3-d image.
>
>..what sort of odd distortion factors... does the "thing" just not appear
>smaller
>or larger.. or does the actual proportions of the object appear to change.

Well, for example, printed too small, Brandi appears to "grow" out of the
paper.  Her shoulders appear too large in relation to the parts of her
torso closer to the page.

>How do you calculate the correct separation to give a correct phantogram ?

It's a simple inverse relation.  If the print containing a life-size image
is three feet wide, and is to be shot with a normal interaxial (of course,
for orthoscopic presentation of the image) - then the print that is to be
12" wide (1/3 as large), must be shot with 3 times the normal interaxial.

>Also does the angle of attack (camera view) make a difference or need to
>be included
>in calculations ?

Yes, absolutely!  The viewing angle will be the same as the taking angle -
so the picture is shot with the expected viewing angle in mind.


Yours,

Boris



Boris Starosta            boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
                          http://www.starosta.com
usa 804 979 3930          http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase



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