P3D phantogram

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)]

Owen,

I thought I would pass my answers on to the list.

In private correspondence regarding my phantograms, Owen Pearn wrote,

>big box though. the full-size version must be awesome - is it life-size?

It is very close to life-size.  It appears life size until you get someone
to pose next to the image.  Then she looks a little small.  Then again, she
is a fairly petite model...

>you ever thought about getting it done as a lenticular print?

I have considered making a barrier type autostereoscopic print (a la Jason
Shen).  I think it would work quite well.  Several drawbacks though: I have
to reshoot with multiple images (five), do multiple
"conversions/distortions."  But amazingly, the cost would not be that much
higher than one of these fancy inkjet prints.  (I think Jason should
consider a sponsored project, make a limited edition run of the images.
They would attract a lot of attention.)

Another drawback:  the great fun in this image is that you can see it as
this strange blue red thing on the floor.  Then when you don the glasses,
it's a big surprise.  With an autostereo, you wouldn't get that.  You would
see weird things on the floor, and as you got closer to the right spot, the
image would slowly evolve into the proper 3-d form...  maybe not as
dramatic.

Another possible drawback:  according to others and my own impression with
autostereoscopic prints, the technology is not good at projecting a sharp
image that has a lot of parallax (i.e. where the image is very distant from
the surface of the print).  This phantogram has A LOT of parallax.  The
life size image has a separation (On Print Deviation) of something like
five inches for her head.  Talk about breaking the rules of anaglyph
printing!  (If it breaks the rules, you know I love it!)

But there's no point in guessing.  I thought I knew what I was going to get
in the life size print, and even I was surprised!  It was just so much
better than I thought it would be!  So maybe a barrier image

P.S. In internet discussions running up to the actual execution of the
life-size phantogram, people were wondering if there might be a problem
with eye focussing (distance) cues conflicting with eye convergence cues...
you know, cause discomfort, or make viewing difficult.  So far, I've not
had a single person tell me that they have had a problem with viewing the
phantogram.  The same holds true for the slight ghosting that was
unavoidable using the CMY inks - the ghosting, although noticed by some
people, does not appear to significantly degrade the experience.  People
usually say something like, "Oh look, she's casting a shadow."

>in yet another one of my Great Ideas, i was thinking if it was possible
>to write a software tool that automatically converted a picture into a
>phantogram. it looks like it's just a warp - they're real easy. it might
>be possible to do it in one of your off-the-shelf packages too, like
>bryce or lightwave or something.

Owen, what do you mean by "just a warp?"  The distortion that needs to be
applied is a true perspective distortion.  It is true that the distortion
is easy to apply, once the geometry of the taking cameras, and the whole
scene are plugged into the software - but that's a trick when you start
from scratch.  Funny you should mention Bryce, because that is exactly what
I used.  (I posted twice to P3D, on how I did the phantograms.  LAst time
on Dec. 7.  Look in the archives, search for "how done.")

Even with good records and measurements taken at the studio, it took me
some three or four hours of work to set up the software for the first
(life-size) phantogram.  Then I had things figured out.  Doing the second
(1/4 scale) phantogram only took another thirty minutes of fiddling with
the software.  It "fell right into place" on the first try.  (Other
problems with the phantogram consumed more hours of software fiddling,
including some work in photoshop).

As far as "automatic" phantogram software goes, I doubt it.  Shooting for a
phantogram is a much more rigorous task than you may at first imagine - and
the measurements are crucial.  I doubt that anyone buying automatic
phantogram generator, would bother to shoot properly for their phantograms,
and then the software would be powerless to produce anything other than
crap.  I was talking with someone else, who was trying to talk
MetaCreations (makers of Bryce) into adding a stereo module to their
software:  They aren't considering it, because the market is so tiny even
just for regular stereo images.  For doing phantograms, I estimate the
market to be three or four persons worldwide.

Maybe that will change, though.  My work on these phantograms has generated
a surprising amount of interest.  I was motivated to do it because of the
ISU cover (of which I learned on this forum), and because of my upcoming
exhibition - now the phantogram has gotten me two leads on possible
commercial jobs, phantograms to be made for marketing purposes.  If these
pan out, they would represent my first commercial work in the 3d medium.
My biggest surprise, I AM in love with phantograms and anaglyphs!



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



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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 3125
***************************