Re: [photo-3d] brilliant advice INDIGNANT REBUTTAL

[bmaxey1@xxxxxxxx]

>>Yet again we are graced (as we are dozens of times a
>>day) by some wonderfully useless advice:

Mr. Lincoln, I will not argue any more about this. Fact is, it could be
done if you have the equipment. I know Mr. Zone has been doing
conversions and quite well I will say. 

As for you, never seen your work and really don't care to. Not my area of
interest. I assume you probably sell an occasional image here and there,
perhaps landing a few assignments. Big deal. There are lots of people
doing this work - probably more than the few on this mailing list. Search
the web and you will turn up a number of folks doing conversions. What is
at issue is not how difficult it is/will be to do. My view is we will
have this ability, and it will not be any more difficult than using any
other image creation/editing software. As I said, it will take power to
do it.

>>yet someone that never has
>>spends some time to let everyone know that all it
>>takes is a powerful computer.

How the Bloody He** do you know what I do or if I have ever done anything
like this? FACT OF THE MATTER is that I have done this type of work. Not
as a commercial service because it does not interest me. Am I good at it?
Nope, not really, but that is because I choose not to do enough of it to
get good at it. I have done my share of conversions of 2D to 3D, 3D
Drawing and the like, but this was years ago and I do not do it now.
Please do not assume what I do or do not do, OK?
 
>>And, yes, I am one of the people on this list that
>>have made a living doing stereoscopic conversions. 
>>And actually you don't need allot of computing power,
>>infact, RAY ZONE had done it for decades without any
>>computer at all, and I did it 6 years ago with a
>>Penium 90meghz.  It actually takes a strong
>>understanding of stereoscopics, and many other talents
>>to do a highquallity conversion.

The stuff you most likely do is NOT what I am talking about here. The
work I am talking about you could not do, neither could anyone else on
this list. No reflection on talents, just a simple fact. I am talking
about taking a 2D Image and recreating the missing view to relay stereo
information. YES, Mr. Lincoln,  you MOST CERTAINLY DO need a powerful
computer. Do a little research into how Toy Story was done. Rendering
time per frame was incredibly long and the images they created are not
close to being suitable for true realism. Yes, I am afraid a powerful
computer and equally powerful software is required and still not here
yet. BUT IT WILL MOST CERTAINLY BE!!

I understand what it takes, Mr. Lincoln - I am not an idiot. If you think
that the process of creating depth information using computers is not a
coming REALITY, you are foolish. FACT IS, we will MOST CERTAINLY have
systems in the very near future that can do this. How much human
intervention is a matter for debate. Less and less as time goes by and we
move forward. Technology will come from places like PIXAR. 

In fact, a company called Orphan Technologies has for several years been
doing work along these lines. As of a few years ago, they were doing
stereo reconstruction as well as depth analysis of 2D images to produce
3D images. This required a Power PC, Multiprocessor version and the
software cost was about 4 grand. I have some prints that show the work
they did several years ago, where a Stereo View Card was restored. They
used a Power PC and their software to recreate missing stereo
information.

So, Mr. Lincoln, take a look at the technology around you. Consider what
has already been done and then project a little. You seem to eager to
dismiss my comments and this is a mistake. Everything I have said will be
here and you had better realize it.

To give you an idea of what the current state of the art is, consider Toy
Story:

** 10 separate texture maps to get the skin to look right. Still does not
come close if you are to duplicate nature with exactness.
** Machine hours needed to render was over 800,000 	
** Maximum weekly output: 3.5 minutes of completed film. 
** Total storage required for all final frames: 500 gigabytes
** Total storage required for all film information: 1 terabyte 
** Rendering an individual frame: Up to 20 hours 	
** 110 computers operating on a 24-hour basis

 I only bore the list with the above because you most likely have all
seen TS, and it gives you a reference to see what might need to be done
in the way of computer power if natural looking 2D to 3D conversions are
to be done.

Bob the Crackpot

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]