Date   

Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

John Rupkalvis
 

There is nothing controversial about that at all, since it is a true fact that all 2-D images are distorted, since they are all missing the third dimension which consists of everything along the Z axis.  It has nothing to do with the purpose or application, and applies to all imaging, including gaming.  

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 4:29 PM Stereopix Net <contact@...> wrote:
it is the ultimate distortion.  2-D, where everything from the closest object to infinity is squashed down to a single plane

It is funny to use this controversial statement on games.
This is one domain in which there exist a lot of two dimensional worlds obviously designed to be without depth.

I am not a gamer, so I am not able to judge the proportion of such 2D games, but just with a quick search I notice that today there are 460 (video-) games tagged with the 3D keyword and 833 with 2D keyword on steam platform website: the 3D ones probably do not use stereoscopy, but the point is that a large proportion of these seem to give no importance to a third dimension in the first place. I remember even a very creative videogame that someone showed me where the projection was part of the gameplay (the player had to change the point of view to progress in various 2D projections of the same scene, and this actually made sense in the context). To be even more extreme, a few weeks ago I modified a 1D game designed some years ago so that people can play it without touching the buttons in the pandemic vigilance context, and nobody complained about any lack of dimensions... :-D

JackDesBwa


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Stereopix Net
 

it is the ultimate distortion.  2-D, where everything from the closest object to infinity is squashed down to a single plane

It is funny to use this controversial statement on games.
This is one domain in which there exist a lot of two dimensional worlds obviously designed to be without depth.

I am not a gamer, so I am not able to judge the proportion of such 2D games, but just with a quick search I notice that today there are 460 (video-) games tagged with the 3D keyword and 833 with 2D keyword on steam platform website: the 3D ones probably do not use stereoscopy, but the point is that a large proportion of these seem to give no importance to a third dimension in the first place. I remember even a very creative videogame that someone showed me where the projection was part of the gameplay (the player had to change the point of view to progress in various 2D projections of the same scene, and this actually made sense in the context). To be even more extreme, a few weeks ago I modified a 1D game designed some years ago so that people can play it without touching the buttons in the pandemic vigilance context, and nobody complained about any lack of dimensions... :-D

JackDesBwa


Re: Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

 

Would not one expect that a 20 mp sensor of a particular physical size (m4/3) would give a larger dimensioned image (in pixels) than a comparable 16 mp sensor? Since that does not happen (mpo file sizes are identical), there must be something in the camera's processing algorithm that determines what the output  of the mpo will be, not strictly based on what is "seen" by the sensor. So the hope would be that the GH2 avoids some downsizing or overcropping that cameras with different sensors might be doing. Or maybe not. 8-) 

Incidentally, I did update my (20 mp) gx8 to the latest (2016?) firmware a few days ago. No change in the mpo output. -Linda

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 6:09 PM akdens2 via groups.io <akdens2=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
probably.

correction about my previous post:
The 12.5mm lens separation  should have been 10mm.

Oktay


Re: Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

Oktay
 

probably.

correction about my previous post:
The 12.5mm lens separation  should have been 10mm.

Oktay


Re: Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

 

So perhaps the 1920 wide images will not have useful extra content?  I will let you know. -Linda

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 5:53 PM akdens2 via groups.io <akdens2=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
What I am saying is , even if this lens pair with 12.5mm separation is used on a full frame sensor, the image width at the   central portion of the sensor will not change for both pairs. Therefore the extension at both edges of the sensor will be useless information to build a stereo image. If the separation of the lens could be increased to something like 15mm (which is impossible) then the increase in sensor width would have a meaning.

Oktay


Re: Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

Oktay
 

What I am saying is , even if this lens pair with 12.5mm separation is used on a full frame sensor, the image width at the   central portion of the sensor will not change for both pairs. Therefore the extension at both edges of the sensor will be useless information to build a stereo image. If the separation of the lens could be increased to something like 15mm (which is impossible) then the increase in sensor width would have a meaning.

Oktay


Re: Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

 

Note that images sent or uploaded to the group are resized to a maximum 2048 x 2048 (our chosen group setting).  Original size was 3888 x 2592 (1944 x 3593 x 2) on according to the exif data.

These Loreo Macro images look much better than what I was able to achieve when I tried this lens in the past. Your Canon 40D and postprocessing in photoshop worked well. Nice images.  Linda

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 2:31 PM Ronald Schalekamp <info@...> wrote:
Ok, here are shots with the Loreo Macro 3D lens. 
Hope they go through, they were quite large, upt to 14 mb.

You can get pretty much the same good results with both lenses, if you put your mind to it.

3D lenses and photography offer challenges and limitations. 2D is easier; and sometimes i think it easier/better to shoot 2D and convert an awesome image into 3D.
That would be another way to go.
However, i do like the rush it gives when viewing an image you just shot in 3D. I was quite happy with the dragonflies and stag beetles.

Ronald 


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

John Clement
 

I understand, the person in charge of codifying the 4k standard declared there will be no 3D option in it.

 

John M. Clement

 

From: main@Photo-3d.groups.io <main@Photo-3d.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ronald Schalekamp
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:41 PM
To: main@Photo-3d.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Photo-3d] Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

 

Same old, same old. Why did the 3D TV come to an end? 3D movies that started in the fifties? Stereoview cards?

It is just a commercial thing. A new gadget to sell. Now its 4K or whatever.
The large producers just want to have us buying new stuff all the time. 
Thats why Nintendo first made a DS with a tiny screen, then a larger screen, then a 3Ds with a tiny screen, then a 3DS with a large screen and on and on....

The succers just keep on buying....

Same thing with camera's. (i say invest in skills, not in material)

I am a bit amazed 3D cinema lasts this long. (when theres a new upgrade to a higher res or something, im sure 3D will go again form the cinema.)


Re: Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

 

 "I doubt the increase from 1824 to 1920 would be due to the increased width at 16:9 ratio."

Agreed, because 1920 is the width of the 4:3 image anyway. We do not yet know the width of the other aspect ratios. But something is different with the GH2 and there could be some quirk in the image processing , probably related  somehow to the processing that goes on with the multi-aspect sensor. vs other sensors. I have ordered a used GH2, so can at least let the group know what the other aspect ratios show with this camera after I get it in a week or so. 

Does anyone understand why the 20 mp gx8 gives the same size images as the 16 mp gx1 and gx7? Linda

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 4:06 PM akdens2 via groups.io <akdens2=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 02:34 PM, Linda N wrote:
"The reason WE care, is that this is most likely the feature of the 16 mp GH2 that enables the automatically generated mpos from the 3D lens to be 1920 wide rather than 1824 for 4:3"

The above graph has almost identical values as my calculations except the 1:1 ratio where I mistakenly did not consider the sensor height.
The slight difference is due to my assumed sensor size of 4612X3468 instead of the 4608X 3456 of GH2.

 I doubt the increase from 1824 to 1920 would be due to the increased width at 16:9 ratio.  

Two images L&R are created on the sensor.

Think of the central part of the sensor, where the Right side of the Left image and Left side of the Right image are built.

The widening of the sensor at both sides will add nothing to this area because the lenses don't move. It will record no additional information.

It will add more image width at the right side of the right image, but the right side of the left image  will not have corresponding parts of that additional image   to create a stereo image because the right side  of the left image has not widened.
The same goes for the increase at the left side of the left image.

Oktay


Re: Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

Oktay
 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 02:34 PM, Linda N wrote:
"The reason WE care, is that this is most likely the feature of the 16 mp GH2 that enables the automatically generated mpos from the 3D lens to be 1920 wide rather than 1824 for 4:3"

The above graph has almost identical values as my calculations except the 1:1 ratio where I mistakenly did not consider the sensor height.
The slight difference is due to my assumed sensor size of 4612X3468 instead of the 4608X 3456 of GH2.

I doubt the increase from 1824 to 1920 would be due to the increased width at 16:9 ratio.

Two images L&R are created on the sensor.

Think of the central part of the sensor, where the Right side of the Left image and Left side of the Right image are built.

The widening of the sensor at both sides will add nothing to this area because the lenses don't move. It will record no additional information.

It will add more image width at the right side of the right image, but the right side of the left image  will not have corresponding parts of that additional image   to create a stereo image because the right side  of the left image has not widened.
The same goes for the increase at the left side of the left image.

Oktay


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Ronald Schalekamp <info@...>
 

Same old, same old. Why did the 3D TV come to an end? 3D movies that started in the fifties? Stereoview cards?

It is just a commercial thing. A new gadget to sell. Now its 4K or whatever.
The large producers just want to have us buying new stuff all the time. 
Thats why Nintendo first made a DS with a tiny screen, then a larger screen, then a 3Ds with a tiny screen, then a 3DS with a large screen and on and on....

The succers just keep on buying....

Same thing with camera's. (i say invest in skills, not in material)

I am a bit amazed 3D cinema lasts this long. (when theres a new upgrade to a higher res or something, im sure 3D will go again form the cinema.)


Re: Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

 

image.png
John,  the idea with the "multi-aspect sensor" is that there are some "extra" pixels that are not counted in the 16mp (overall sensor is really ~18mp instead of 16p) but the camera uses them where it needs them the most with various aspect ratios. So you still get 16 mp output as advertised, but the 3:2 and 16:9 are a little wider,and a little wider yet, than simple crops of the 4:3 would give you, (what  most cameras do?). The diagonal angle of view is the same for these three aspect ratios.

The reason WE care, is that this is most likely the feature of the 16 mp GH2 that enables the automatically generated mpos from the 3D lens to be 1920 wide rather than 1824 for 4:3 images. Even cameras with 20 mp such as the gx7 still give the 1824 maximum width, for some reason. No one has yet reported what image dimensions result with the other aspect ratios on the GH2. The multi-aspect sensor may interact with the mpo algorithm to produce results similar to the graph above? Or maybe not.

Yes, we know that slightly larger widths can be obtained by shooting "unprocessed" images such as you get with your GH5. But most of us prefer not to go to that effort, if we have a compatible camera that outputs mpos. Besides, the camera was really designed by Panasonic for easy 3D images that can be immediately read by 3D TVs, theirs and others. Linda


On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 1:39 PM akdens2 via groups.io <akdens2=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 12:24 PM, John Hart wrote:
I would rather use full sensor width (widest view and highest total resolution for all).  In Linda's graph (above), the 4:3 multi-sensor setting uses less sensor area than is available.  To me that just seems silly.


Re: Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

Ronald Schalekamp <info@...>
 

Ok, here are shots with the Loreo Macro 3D lens. 
Hope they go through, they were quite large, upt to 14 mb.

You can get pretty much the same good results with both lenses, if you put your mind to it.

3D lenses and photography offer challenges and limitations. 2D is easier; and sometimes i think it easier/better to shoot 2D and convert an awesome image into 3D.
That would be another way to go.
However, i do like the rush it gives when viewing an image you just shot in 3D. I was quite happy with the dragonflies and stag beetles.

Ronald 


Re: Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

Oktay
 



Sensor size and imaging area are different.
Sensor size relates to the physical dimensions of the sensor itself, not it's imaging area.(wiki)

The sensor of a 4:3 camera measures 18mmX13.5mm (22.5mm diagonal) with an imaging area of 17.3mm X 13mm (21.63mm diagonal)

As shown in Linda's graph the diameter of the optimum image circle , which is 21.63mm defines the measurements of the multi sensor imaging area.

Knowing the 21.63mm image circle diameter I made some simple calculations and came up with the following results:

-  4:3 aspect ratio:
Sensor size 17.3mm X 13mm =225mm sq
4612px X 3468px   = 16MP

-  3 : 2 aspect ratio:
Sensor size : 12mm X 18mm  = 216mm sq
4800px X 3200px  =15.36MP

-  16 : 9 aspect ratio:
Sensor size : 10.6mm X 18.85mm  =200mm sq
5025px X 2826px  = 14.2MP

-  1 : 1 aspect ratio:
Sensor size :  15.3mm X 15.3mm  =234mm sq
4076px X 4076px  = 16.6MP

As seen, more horizontal pixels at 16:9 but least total resolution.
Square image provides highest resolution but least width coverage.
As usual preferences will be according to existing condition and requirements.

Oktay


Re: Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

Oktay
 

On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 12:24 PM, John Hart wrote:
I would rather use full sensor width (widest view and highest total resolution for all).  In Linda's graph (above), the 4:3 multi-sensor setting uses less sensor area than is available.  To me that just seems silly.


Re: Stereo books

robert mcafee
 

According to the eBay listing here was a set of 250 signed copies and then additional ones printed for the trades.  I didn't think it appropriate to post link to the ebay listing here but you can certainly search for it to learn more about this particular book offerred for sale.

I understand David Starkman was scheduled to give a presentation on 3D books for the new Brooklyn Stereoscopic Association last Sunday.  There is another meeting today at 2 PM Eastern Daylight Time


Re: Stereo books

Alexander Klein
 

I do have a copy in my collection. However, the quality of the pictures is pretty bad.

All original books should be signed and numbered - but there are a lot of re-prints out there ...

Alexander


Am 20.09.2020 17:04, schrieb robert mcafee via groups.io:

Anyone familiar with
First Impressions of America by TC Porter(1899)txt w stereorscopic pics+viewer?

Flat wooden viewer included inside book.  Authors claims just 2nd book produced with stereoviews. 

Copy for sale on eBay (not autographed) appears fair condition to me.



Stereo books

robert mcafee
 

Anyone familiar with
First Impressions of America by TC Porter(1899)txt w stereorscopic pics+viewer?

Flat wooden viewer included inside book.  Authors claims just 2nd book produced with stereoviews. 

Copy for sale on eBay (not autographed) appears fair condition to me.


Re: May, 1: A new era in 3D photography?: Sony multi-terminal era

Oktay
 

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 05:11 AM, Antonio F.G. wrote:
"Sadly I have not tried to use this pair since then although I use one of the bodies continuously for shooting 3D macro with special lenses.
What lenses are those? I long for a macro 3D lens for the X-M1"
These are variable magnification 3D Macro lenses that I produce manually.

Oktay


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Kevin Brooks
 

"Classical painters frequently attempted to convey the element of the third dimension through the use of 2-D depth cues, such as perspective and shading.  Such attempts were unsuccessful, but pointed out their awareness of the 2-D distortion."

I (and, I would wager, many art lovers through the centuries) would disagree with this. I would say that their use of monocular depth cues was, in the case of many great artists, extraordinarily successful, hence their fame and status. I do not think this points out any awareness of "distortion". Few of these artists have documented any appreciation of the importance of binocular depth cues (Leonardo, who did indeed understand some aspects of the geometry of binocular vision, being a notable exception). They simply used what depth cues they could given the medium they were working with.

Like most people likely to be reading a 3d photo forum, I am a fan of binocular depth cues (e.g. binocular disparity, or parallax if that is your preferred terminology). But the utility of monocular depth cues should not be dismissed. They are sources of information about depth just as binocular cues are, sometimes relying on the same geometry (most obviously motion parallax) or principles of physics (shadows and shading, aerial perspective, etc.). Why should disparity be considered "special" a priori?
To me, the description of 2D images as "distorted" (or worse - "the ultimate distortion"!) is at best imprecise. I accept that when they are viewed with 2 eyes, binocular depth cues specify that the surface is flat, even though the monocular depth cues that were so effectively mastered by great artists specify distance by other means. But to stereoblind observers, there is no distortion. To one-eyed observers, there is no distortion. If you close one eye, there is no distortion (this was noted by Leonardo).
On the other hand, stereoscopic images, as we often view them (e.g. in stereoscopes, or on 3D TVs/projection screens), are almost never orthostereoscopic (ie. properly calibrated for the exact viewing angle, field of view, projection screen size, interocular distance, etc.), and hence are also distorted. They also omit depth cues such as accommodation (the way that objects at different depths go in and out of focus as the lens changes shape) and motion parallax as do 2D images.




"Speculated" is exactly the correct term here. Other research has actually collected data on the stereoscopic nature of these images and found no evidence of any stereoscopic depth whatsoever.


Kevin Brooks