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.
|
|
P3D Re: photonet on cdrom?
I found this information on the Mystic Photo web page.
With photos on CD you get:
High resolution images (1536 x 1024)
On Floppy Disk:
Image resolution is 600x400 compressed file format.
Each disk holds 24 to 25 images
http://www.mysticcolorlab.com/bin/sct24/mystic/v2/pcphotos.html#cdrom
Bob Wier wrote:
>
> I just very recently got a mailer from Mystic Photo in Conn about
> their offering processed photos scanned onto a CDROM for $10 USD
> per roll. I've used their internet delivery, but the resolution was
> so low (only resonable for web apps) that I decided it wasn't worth
> $5/roll. However, the advert blurb tends to indicate that the CDROM
> version is much higher res. (If I can get 20 or 36 hi rez images
> on a CD-ROM for $10, it might be cost effective for me to do so
> as opposed to getting prints and taking the time to scan them
> myself - I basically consider the $5/roll low rez a rip off, though).
>
> The only problem is that there seems to be conflicting specs. One
> spec tends to indicate a full photo-3d high rez image, whereas another
> just specs 800*600.
>
> I've searched the net and can't find ANY information on this
> at all - I just thought I'd ask here in case anyone knows
> anything.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob Wier
> mailto:wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 12:55 AM Monday, January 18, 1999
> Unix/Internet Administrator
> Rocky Mountain College, Billings MT.
> keeper of the Photo-3d and Overland-Trails
> mailing lists and the USA GPS Waypoint server
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:42:06 -0500
From: "ron labbe" <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "PHOTO 3D" <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: P3D Anaglyph in stage show
Message-ID: <000301be42f0$b87badd0$b9a4b5bb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This technique has been around for MANY years! (surprise?)
Ebay had a Playbill for auction with 3D glasses from "Ziegfield Follies"
show (1920's?) called ZIEGFIELD SHADOWGRAPH. I didn't win the auction, but I
downloaded the photo! You can see it at
http://www.studio3d.com/images/playbill1.jpg
Ray Zone: any bipolar light on this?
ron
ron labbe
studio3D 30 glendale st maynard, ma 01754
978 897-4221 fon/fax
mailto:ron@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.studio3d.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:58:18 -0500 (EST)
From: ddd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: P3D Anaglyphic stage shows
Message-ID: <9901181058180W.07916@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi!
Hearing about this reminded me of a reference to this type of show done a
long time ago, so i did a little digging.
I found a note in Morgan & Symmes book "Amazing 3-D", 1982:An early
(1922/'23) anaglyphic short film at NewYork's Rivoli Theater was in
competition at the time with the Selwyn Theater's own presentation of a
stereo short (utilizing mechanical shutters viewers!) opened by a
stereoscopic shadow dance performed by live actors.
Further digging in Starlog's photo guidebook "Fantastic 3-D", 1982, turned
up an item about 1918's Keith-Abbey vaudeville circuit's shawdograph act:
"... which featured a chorus line strutting its stuff and flashing high kicks
at the audience. In the midst of the number, a translucent screen was
lowered in front of the girls who were then illuminated from the rear with
red and green light- casting red and green shadows on the screen. The
audience members, by donning reg-green glasses, saw a 3-D effect of the
girls' legs flying into their arms!"
I remember wanting to try out the effect, but after graduation, i had no
more access to a scrim large enough to try. It sure sounds like fun, tho,...
tc
----------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:23:18 EST
From: MarkKernes@xxxxxxx
To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: P3D Reason for 3D
Message-ID: <77c8435.36a35ff6@xxxxxxx>
In a message dated 1/16/99 3:48:29 AM, Rod Sage wrote:
<<One reason I enjoy photos of any type is that they immortalize a frozen
moment in time, never to happen again. Something you will not see if you
look out the window.>>
As the only person in the world who is documenting the adult video industry in
3D, with roughly 2500 stereo pairs to date, I must say I agree.
Mark Kernes
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:03:25 -0700
From: Bob Wier <wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: P3D Re: photonet on cdrom?
>I found this information on the Mystic Photo web page.
>
>With photos on CD you get:
>High resolution images (1536 x 1024)
>
Thanks! What they have there is somewhat at variance with what they
had printed in their promotional brouchere. I might give it a try
and see what happens.
--BW
Bob Wier
mailto:wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
12:03 PM Monday, January 18, 1999
Unix/Internet Administrator
Rocky Mountain College, Billings MT.
keeper of the Photo-3d and Overland-Trails
mailing lists and the USA GPS Waypoint server
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:05:36 -0700
From: Bob Wier <wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: P3D Re: Anaglyph in stage show
>This technique has been around for MANY years! (surprise?)
>Ebay had a Playbill for auction with 3D glasses from "Ziegfield Follies"
>show (1920's?) called ZIEGFIELD SHADOWGRAPH. I didn't win the auction, but I
>downloaded the photo! You can see it at
>http://www.studio3d.com/images/playbill1.jpg
That's pretty interesting. The glasses sure have held their color well!
I note they did "Red on Right"...
Bob Wier
mailto:wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
12:05 PM Monday, January 18, 1999
Unix/Internet Administrator
Rocky Mountain College, Billings MT.
keeper of the Photo-3d and Overland-Trails
mailing lists and the USA GPS Waypoint server
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:20:55 -0800
From: Ray Zone <r3dzone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: P3D Shadowgraphs
Message-ID: <l03130300b2c9348d9a4f@[209.178.13.183]>
Two previous posters wrote:
>Anyway at the first interval Red/Green anaglyph glasses
>were handed out to the audience and when it reach a
>storm/shipwreck scene they dropped a white screen
>on the stage switched on a red and a green lamp behind the screen
>and the 'actors' preceded to do various silly activities behind the screen
>effectively back projecting 3D shadows of actions such
>as throwing things into the crowd, swinging a fishing rod into the crowd<
>Thanks for this description. It's a VERY interesting use of anaglyph, and
>one that I'd never heard of before. I suppose it's somewhat akin to the
>technique discussed here several months ago of creating volumetric shadows
>in still lifes by moving the light source between shooting separate left
>and right images. Just when you think everything 3D has been tried...
This is actually an anaglyphic "gimmick" with a history.
In 1918 the Keith-Abbey Vaudeville circuit began to use what they called the
"Shadowgraph." A translucent screen was lowered in front of a line of
dancing girls. Red and green illumination behind the dancers created
anaglyphic shadows on the screen which the audience viewed through red and
green glasses.
In my 3-D collection is a 1925 playbill for the Ohio Theatre in Cleveland.
It includes a lorgnette pair of anaglyph glasses for use with the "Shadow
Number." Scene 12 in the playbill is the "Ziegfeld Shadowgraph" which is
described as follows: "This is the number where you use the Follies-Scope
glasses which have been handed you with program. The RED glass to cover
the right eye. SOILING THE GLASSES IN ANY WAY WILL SPOIL THE EFFECT
ENTIRELY. Optical Illusion by Laurens Hammond. U.S. Patent Number
1,481,006."
On October 27, 1990 in Los Angeles, I recreated this gimmick for a rock 'n
roll band named "Haunted Garage" and the "Halloween Freakout of the
Decade." As the band performed their monster rock music a scrim behind
them revealed anaglyphic shadows of a mohawk-coifed amazon lashing her
helpless slave with a cat-o-nine tails as the audience viewed with their
"free souvenir glasses." Other anaglyphic delights on the program included
a German erotic anaglyph film titled "Eine Kleine Heiney Ho" along with
projected anaglyph slides.
---Ray Zone
**************************
The Ray Zone Theory of Relative Numbers: 1 + 1 = 3 (D)
**************************
Visit Ray's 3-D Website at:
http://www.ray3dzone.com
*********************
The 3-D Zone
PO Box 741159
Los Angeles, CA 90004
ph: 323-662-3831
fx: 323-662-3830
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:17:27 -0800
From: michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)
To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: P3D Re: PHOTO-3D digest 3161
Message-ID: <199901181917.LAA02162@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hi everybody!
Welcome!!
> My name is Michael Lankes, I am from Germany and new to this list. I read
> the posts for a while now and I want to refer to two topics, the "whats so
> special about 3D, look out of the window!" and "shutter speed". I have to
> say that I ordered a stereo lens system from pentax (thats low end, I know,
> no flames please) a week ago and havent received it yet (maybe someone has
The Pentax stereo adapter is a high end stereo adapter. Others who's
name will not be mentioned may try to get you to buy a Realist even though
the un-named person is now heavily using a modern German made stereo camera.
:-)
His comments will be justified, but don't let anybody keep you from having
fun and enjoying the stereo adapter. The adapter allows standard slide
mounting with no fuss, and it works along with being very easy to use.
> experience with this thing). I guess that if you combine highspeed shutter
> with stereo images there could be some amazing results you normally can not
> see with your eyes. As the pentax thing is a small unit put in front of a
> normal camera which then puts the two images on one, I guess you can use
> the highest speed your camera does (1/2000s and higher), so you could
> really freeze smoke/fire, waterfalls and something like that, which our
> eyes (or brain) are not capable of seeing, since they are not fast enough.
Yes, that's a niche that the stereo adapter excels in (where one isn't using
a flash to provide the stop-action). However for this usage I'd recommend
using an SLR with a vertical-flying shutter to provide "sync" between the
exposure of each side of the image. Horizontally flying shutters take one
image a bit earlier than the other. Also don't use it in front of a lens
that rotates the adapter when it focuses. :-)
> Also has anybody of you experimented with slow shutter speeds (more than a
> second), which should capture movements in 3D?
I've played with extremely long shutters (or actually short exposures
done periodically over a long period so they add up on the film to a long
exposure effectively) to make people and such "dissappear". Or at least
the people who don't stand still. :-) Trying to emulate those century
old photos of city streets that appear empty even though there was traffic
going on at the time.
> I am already excited to experiment with these things and I do agree that
> the more experimental and artificial things seem to be much more
> interesting than just a realistic shot.
I don't think that was meant. The experiments you speak
of can be done with just your 2D camera. That which is added by making them
3D is that the perception of realism is intensified, and that in turn
makes an "artificial" effect being attempted more intense as well.
Mike K.
>
> michael
P.S. - I started with the Pentax Stereo adapter twenty or so years ago. Not a
bad place to start, but I hope you aren't buying one new. Their current
new price is a bit high (gross understatement).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 20:57:21 +0100
From: Michael Martin Lankes <michael.lankes@xxxxxx>
To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: P3D Re: Fast/Slow shutter speeds, etc.
Message-ID: <36A39221.3088D14E@xxxxxx>
Dr. George A. Themelis wrote:
> >I ordered a stereo lens system from pentax (thats low end, I know,
> >no flames please)...
>
> It depends how you define "low end". It is my understanding that this
> system is very expensive. Did you order it through Pentax directly?
> Would you mind telling us how much it costs? There has been a lot
> of discussion on "beamsplitters" vs. conventional photography in past
> digests. Perhaps you can read these if you are interested to read
> some advantages and shortcomings of the "stereo adapter" approach.
First of all, thank you very much for that much information, I dont know
too much about stereography yet and I will definitely search the
archives when I have some free time. To the pentax thing: It is just an
adapter that is put in front of your normal camera. It seems like it has
been in the pentax program for a long time, some dealers told me, that
it would not be available anymore. I ordered it at another local dealer
(it is a quite big photo store, they phoned up pentax, to make sure,
that it is still available). It is listed with DM 299,- (about $180).
There is a viewer available from pentax, where you can put the slide in
and look through some kind of binoculars (Pentax Stereo Viewer II). That
one is listed DM 399,- (about $240). As I ordered the beamsplitter, the
shop owner said, that he remembers a stereo thing, looked into some
desks and showed me exactly that pentax viewer. Wow, what are the odds
for this!? I then asked him, what he wants for it, and he said, "That is
for free, I have had it for a long time now and I cannot use it anyway!"
!! I tried to remain cool, said "Well... ok, I¥ll take it", went out of
the store and praised god. I guess he didnt know what that thing is
worth, it really looks like they sell it for no more than $20, a piece
of plastic with a few mirrors.
But that seems to be a good start for me.
michael
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:10:40 -0500 (EST)
From: boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)
To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: P3D stereoscopy and language
Message-ID: <v01530501b2c8c3b2438d@[207.69.19.23]>
We've been here before, but this topic deserves more discussion I think.
I am talking about perhaps the most vexing problem in marketing stereo to
the mass market: language. Say "stereoscopic" and people give you a blank
look. Say "stereo" and people reply, "crank it up, dude." Say 3-d, or
Three dimensional, or related terms, and people know you are talking about
software that generates (flat) pictures with perspective, of scenes that
are three dimensional representations.
No commonly understood term exists for stereo photography except
"ViewMaster." And that term evokes the image of a toy, which presents
teensy little toy images.
Do we have to make up a new term to describe stereoscopic imagery? I think so.
The thought came to me recently after perusing advertising for new
computers. All these features that are "3D" - 3D graphics boards for
example, and now "3D Sound" as well! What is that!? Stereo sound?
Surround sound? Quadraphonic sound? (with retro all the rage these days,
they should easily be able to sell Quadraphonic) These marketing people
are just making up words willy nilly to attract attention to their
products, even if perfectly good words already exist!
So lets make up a sexy word that describes stereoscopic imagery, but can be
spelled by the masses. Any ideas?
Bioptic. Quadravisual. Duoscopic.
Boris Starosta boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.starosta.com
usa 804 979 3930 http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:30:00 -0800
From: michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)
To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: P3D Re: stereoscopy and language
Message-ID: <199901182130.NAA02224@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
> So lets make up a sexy word that describes stereoscopic imagery, but can be
> spelled by the masses. Any ideas?
>
> Bioptic. Quadravisual. Duoscopic.
XoticVision
Mike K.
>
>
>
>
>
> Boris Starosta boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.starosta.com
> usa 804 979 3930 http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:51:26 -0500
From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxx>
To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: P3D Re: stereoscopy and language
Message-ID: <36A3ACB8.700D@xxxxxx>
Boris Starosta wrote:
> I am talking about perhaps the most vexing problem in marketing stereo to
> the mass market: language.
Respectfully, I think that's low down on the list of problems, but it
would be interesting to see if there was a cool new term which
immediately buzzed comsumers...
The few meetings I've done representing our Stereo New England group to
mass market of photographers (not even the real general mass market),
the number one overwhelming question/objection is:
"Do you have to use a viewer?"
>From this highly informal and unscientific research, I would guess that
if you could overcome the viewing problem, maybe you'd have something
for the mass market (slides died for the same reason...), but then
there'd be all the other obsticles to overcome, such as:
"You mean it's not point and shoot?"
"You mean I can't get it processed in an hour next door?"
"You mean I don't get as many pictures?"
"You mean I can't zoom in?"
"You mean I can't put it in an album?"
"You mean the camera costs more than $100?"
"You mean the camera's bigger/heavier?"
"You mean there's no macro setting?"
"You mean I have to think about what I'm doing?"
et al...
Eric G.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:44:22 -0500
From: John Bradley <JB3D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "INTERNET:photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: P3D Earliest stereo viewing query
Message-ID: <199901181744_MC2-6720-24AF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The following query has just been posted to the
History of Photography forum. I recall some discussion
around this topic once, but can't remember our
conclusions.
If anyone has any interesting comments I'll post them
across to our cousins on HoP.
Kind regards,
John Bradley
JB3D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Begin Quote
THE EARLIEST STEREO VIEWING
I've received an interesting piece of information which none of my books
seem to address, concerning the first application of a stereo system. The
writer states:
"The first application of a stereo system, of which I am aware, had been
made using a microscope in 1677, by the French philosopher - le Pere
Cherubin, of Orleans - a Capuchin friar. And this, fewer than twelve years
after the first book on microscopy, Robert Hooke's Micrographia (1665). The
following is an extract from the description given by Cherubin of his
instrument: Some years ago I resolved to effect what I had long before
premeditated, to make a microscope to see the smallest objects with the two
eyes conjointly: and this project has succeeded even beyond my expectation;
with the advantages above the single instrument so extraordinary and so
surprising, that every intelligent person to whom I have shown the effect
has assured me that inquiring philosophers will be highly pleased with the
communication.' "
While I am awaiting information from the source, can anyone confirm that
this instrument gave a stereo image?
Thanks!
Robert Leggat
http://www.kbnet.co.uk/rleggat/photo/history/stereosc.htm
End Quote
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:15:26 -0000
From: Adamson D <D.Adamson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: P3D RE: P3D stereoscopy and language
Message-ID: <40C24C464D6FD21189090000C0F06ACF43E064@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I agree totally with your points.
For websites at present I usually put up "stereoscopy" or "stereoscopic",
and just let people click and find out.
Images wise, I think an image of red/blue glasses (EVEN if that ISN'T the
system you will use!) also comunicates the idea, because most people have
seen them. An alternative 'image' is that of an old stereocard.
Although most definatly, a good/new word would be handy. Something not too
much like a product - somthing else will then be given its name!, and
PROBABLY nothing with a number - a product will rise to 'version 3'.
My own thoughts..... I havent arrived at any definite names/combinations
yet...
... but I think the full word "dimension" could be important (with somthing
else). It is less likely that a product would be given this (in a confusing
way) - well unless it was a product we would all want to support.
> Eric Goldstein's list of CAMERA buyer questions were perfectly valid and
> true. But a good name goes beyond cameras. It would descirbe things like
> shows/exibits/'experiences' that were, what we all consider
> 3d/stereoscopic effects/processes.
>
[note: 'effects' is a term I like to add to distinguish from actually,
naturlally viewing somthing with our eyes. ;-> ]
David Adamson.
> ----------
> From: boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx[SMTP:boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Reply To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: 18 January 1999 21:11
>
>I am talking about perhaps the most vexing problem in marketing stereo to
>the mass market: language. Say "stereoscopic" and people give you a blank
>look. Say "stereo" and people reply, "crank it up, dude." Say 3-d, or
>Three dimensional, or related terms, and people know you are talking about
>software that generates (flat) pictures with perspective, of scenes that
>are three dimensional representations.
>
>No commonly understood term exists for stereo photography except
>"ViewMaster." And that term evokes the image of a toy, which presents
>teensy little toy images.
>
>Do we have to make up a new term to describe stereoscopic imagery? I
>think so.
>
>The thought came to me recently after perusing advertising for new
>computers. All these features that are "3D" - 3D graphics boards for
>example, and now "3D Sound" as well! What is that!? Stereo sound?
>Surround sound? Quadraphonic sound? (with retro all the rage these days,
>they should easily be able to sell Quadraphonic) These marketing people
>are just making up words willy nilly to attract attention to their
>products, even if perfectly good words already exist!
>
>So lets make up a sexy word that describes stereoscopic imagery, but can
>be spelled by the masses. Any ideas?
>
>Bioptic. Quadravisual. Duoscopic.
------------------------------
End of PHOTO-3D Digest 3164
***************************
|
