Date   

Fujifilm W3 not functioning

Oktay
 

When I turn on my W3 the following message is displayed on the screen:

TURN OFF THE CAMERA
AND TURN ON AGAIN

Turning on and off brings the same message again and again.  A slight and short  bzzzz  sound is also heard during turning on and off.
Did anyone encounter the same problem with the W3?

Oktay



Re: 3d-printed stereoscope update

Bill Costa as just a member
 

[The] second-generation viewer (Cinera Edge - still not released) uses a much smaller high resolution display but I have no idea where they get these.

Creation and commodification of micro displays has been driven by the need for electronic view-finders (EVF) for mirrorless cameras, and head mounted displays for VR.  These displays are readily available from Sony and no doubt other companies.  The problem of course is that serious electronics design and development is required to drive these displays not to mention the optical design challenges.  This is a very tough lift for an individual developer or hobbyist.  I think a product space to watch is the EVF market for videographers.  These devices are certainly not cheap, but price may continue to drop and given their module nature, it looks like it would be feasible for a motivated hobbyist or developer to create a driver using an Arduino or Raspberry Pi module.

--
Bill.Costa@...
No good deed goes unpunished.


Re: 3d-printed stereoscope update

Depthcam
 

> The evolution of digital technologies is so fast that designing a specific solution for a particular type of displays or phones is very problematic. The "modular design" allows to simply adapt the viewer to any new type of display by making a new back


But the problem is - by your own admission - that there is no better solution at the moment than the discontinued Sony ZX.  Therefore that modular solution (at present) only offers options that are lower resolution than the ZX.  As for the MF3D option, as I pointed out, it is addressing a very specific and very small market that most digital enthusiasts do not share.


> If you pointed me to a better type of displays than the ones I linked I can possibly make a housing for them.


I think the problem right now is we don't have any sources for better displays.  Cinera used wider displays but they were so large that they needed to arrange them in a Wheatstone configuration - making for a much larger viewer.  Their second-generation viewer (Cinera Edge - still not released) uses a much smaller high resolution display but I have no idea where they get these.


> The same with smartphones.


There seems to be no more race to 4K as far as phones are concerned.  I think this race was initially motivated by people using phones in VR shell-type headsets.  But since the advent of lower cost high resolution VR headsets, most people that are interested in VR will buy integrated headsets such as Quest2 and the like instead of using their phones.


> The price you refer to ($100 for the XZ Premium viewer) was simply unbearable


That is unfortunate as it also means a strong limitation when all costs are added.  Even though some people think nothing of price, others are very conscious of the final retail cost due to their limited budget.  Although I often appear here as the "black sheep", I am actually voicing the concerns that many have expressed in private emails to me.  They are looking for a compact and economical solution.  Maybe that is not achievable ?


> The printing time of the body is about 30 hours, around 50 for the whole viewer with all other parts


That is why a casting solution might be considered..  See below a sample of the kind of work my friend does with 3D printed originals...

Francois


Re: 3d-printed stereoscope update

Depthcam
 

> Comparing the resolution of stand alone VR viewers running on Android is, I think, not fair


My references are not to VR headsets but to 3D movie viewers.  These use the entire display and pixels to apply to a minimum 16:9 image area having minimum FHD capability.  They are:

* Cinera Prime
* Goovis Pro 3D
* TCL wearable display

None of these are VR headsets.


> If you want to make a enclosure of a viewer of plastic, and it will be a complicated one, you have to deal with mould costs of at least 20.000 Euro's for each part


Not so.  I have a friend and colleague here that can make low-cost molds and castings from 3D printed originals that look like they were produced by a large manufacturing plant.  His main line of business is in fact producing high quality resin copies of 3D printed originals which he first refinishes to remove all trace of the 3D printing process - leaving a professional finish.


> 3D printing is one of the affordable new production methods to solve the need of very low series custom build 3D stuff


I am not discounting 3D printing per se.  What I question is the need for a modular viewer rather than one for a single purpose.  The modular design involves extra parts and therefore extra costs. As I pointed out, most people want a digital only viewer.  So there is no logic in making the viewer modular just to accommodate the very few that might want an MF viewer.  Better make one single design for each use.


> connecting it to your computer or other sources with more reasonable lower magnification.


From descriptions I read the TCL will connect to a computer or phone.  But an app can also play the content.


> But that is part of this community to encourage and to comment on things


That's what a discussion forum is for.  But a lot of people fear voicing a different opinion because they know there will always be someone to chastise them for it.

I don't mean to discourage Matej.  I told him from the onset that I was impressed with his work.  But looking at his current proposal, I would be very curious to know just how many people would prefer a very elaborate modular system over a simple viewer that does just what the buyer requires...

Francois


Re: 3d-printed stereoscope update

robert mcafee
 

1) you may find you can reduce your costs and have other material options and 3D printing methods available using a company like Protolabs or Xomety - free online quotes. Better pricing in small volumes compared to only a couple pieces at a time
2) many of these materials shrink overtime or their dimensions and mechanical properties are (at least temporarily) affected by high humidity
3) protolabs also does plastic molding. An aluminum die good for up to 2,000 pieces could be around $3,000 (or more) but with low piece price costs. In quantities of 150 to 250 pieces this may be worthwhile.  

I like to use an ABS like PLA - very dimensionally stable but higher temperature required to print. I will leave a piece in my hot car to see if it permanently deforms 




On Monday, June 14, 2021, 3:37 PM, Matej Bohac <matej@...> wrote:


> Are you printing these yourself?  If yes, May I ask what printer you are
> using?

Yes, I have the Prusa MK3S

> What material are you using for the 3D printing?

I prefer PLA for these projects. I like the mechanical characteristics
and the way it looks. A little bit problematic is the low resistance to
higher temperatures - the viewer can warp when left in a car etc.

M.






Re: Twin camera Overlapping/Staggering

Antonio F.G.
 

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 06:05 PM, William Kiraly wrote:
Yep, that sounds like a better idea.
Well, with a perspective of ~20° I could reduce the vertical error from 2.1pix to 1pix (not a great improvement). But the perspective artifacts that appear look far worse to me than the 2.1pixel vertical error. Most obvious is the depth of the right side of the piano: There is a visual conflict because the 2D clues tell it is near (as is indeed in the original image), but the stereo depth tells it is very far. This is produced by the perspective stretching. It also produces a lot of undesirable depth.

The image is strange in other aspect: The focal length of the cameras looks different, because one of them required a correction of 0.855

Regards
    Antonio


Re: Twin camera Overlapping/Staggering

Antonio F.G.
 

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 10:02 PM, George Themelis wrote:

SPM proves pretty much useless in aligning this. See what you can do Antonio.

Well, not sure whether it would win many stereo photo contests, but here you have your arm-chair aligned with a maximum vertical disparity of 0.1% of the final height (actually 1.2pixels).
It may not look like a chair any more, but at least it may be good as a couch:-)

The LRL image shows the matching points with the vertical error of each of them. As predicted the alignment required a very strong perspective distortion, I had expected the optimum perspective angle to be atan(100/50)=63°, but the photos are aligned with ~53°, I do not understand the reason of the difference.

I guess you will not be happy correcting your stereo pairs in this way. True that yours was a rather exaggerated take, but I am a bit worried with the coloured piano of William Kiraly that is supposedly shot with a normal staggered rig, but the perspective produces rather um pleasant horizontal disparity artifacts (see my next message to him).

In fact we had already a discussion on this list and we made some experiments with stereo pairs shot with a difference in distance. The perspective stretches horizontally one side of the image that results in two effects:
-- The objects are distorted (the horizontal stretching is different from the vertical one)
-- The horizontal stretching increases quite a lot the stereo depth.

See my posts:
https://photo-3d.groups.io/g/main/message/122962
https://photo-3d.groups.io/g/main/message/122981

Regards
   Antonio





Re: [off-list] 3d-printed stereoscope update

Matej Bohac
 

My apologies, just to avoid confusion: I changed the subject line to [off-list], but forgot to change the address:-) But never mind.
Matej

On 6/14/21 10:33 PM, Matej Bohac via groups.io wrote:
Hi Bill,
Thank you very much for the offer!
I am just about to test a pair of 80mm lenses bought cheaply from "surplus shed". I'll see what they are like. But the conclusion might be that we really need a custom made product for a satisfactory result. I'll let you know how it turns out.
regards,
Matej
On 6/14/21 7:17 PM, Bill G wrote:
Matej, sorry I have been on the 3d sidelines for awhile as other projects have pulled me away from 3d.
It's sad you have to justify providing the ONLY current products for our tiny hobby.  I am sure you if you accounted for all your design hours into these projects, and supervising the builds, dealing with customers, whatever you net, would yield you less than minimum wage. This is obviously a passion project for you, certainly NOT a "get wealthy project."  Please don't be discouraged by certain comments, you can never please everyone.

The 3d world viewers were priced for mass production.  Like all 3d projects, the volume never follows.  We all see how long 3dWorld stayed in business.  It was not a sustainable business model.
I am grateful you have the passion, expertise, and willingness to provide these products at such competitive prices for such low volume products.  I love the new modular system you moved to.  As u mentioned, it makes perfect sense for multi use and future expansion. It will provide 3d viewing products for existing and new 3d users of many formats, something this field really needs.

I had some 75mm fl optics designed for MF 3d Film 50x60 which I prototyped over 10 years ago.  They are quite wide, about 55mm diam from memory.   I have the designs and manufacturing specifications. If you are interested I can try to find the specifications and give them to you at no cost.  The problem will be the price... they were quoted 10 yrs ago at $80 each in volume of 100, this was due to the diameter, glass type, coatings.  They are superb for fixed IPD viewer as they have a very large eye box and a generous amount of Eye Relief, two significant benefits for a universal viewer, i.e. one size fits all.  I realize this would require another new design to hold these optics vs. what you are planning to use.  It seems optics manufacturing pricing is falling a bit, so maybe they can be built at a slightly lower cost today.  I suggest u manually check the fl of each optic and pair them when u get a batch of them, before inserting in the viewer.  Nominal fl and actual fl can vary.  This is a result of low manufacturing tolerance of the glass to keep the price at these low levels.
Bill G


On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 9:48 AM Matej Bohac <matej@boha.cz <mailto:matej@boha.cz>> wrote:

    Thanks to everyone for the comments and especially to Jeroen, who
    answered some of the remarks. Just a few things I'd like to clarify:

    - The evolution of digital technologies is so fast that designing a
    specific solution for a particular type of displays or phones is very
    problematic. The "modular design" allows to simply adapt the viewer to
    any new type of display by making a new back, without having to change
    the whole body. And, from the perspective of the user, without
    having to
    buy a new body. If you pointed me to a better type of displays than the
    ones I linked I can possibly make a housing for them. The same with
    smartphones.

    - The modular design does not add much to the price of the printing.
    The
    price you refer to ($100 for the XZ Premium viewer) was simply
    unbearable with all the effort put in re-designing the viewer according
    to the response and demands I received. I designed and made the first
    viewers for my friends, out of pure enthusiasm.
    Development of any product requires an enormous amount of work, test
    printing, buying and testing components and other expenses and as we
    all
    know, the prospective production volume is ridiculously low here.
    The body is not just "plastic". There are metal gears and other parts
    and the assembly requires an amount of handwork that is not negligible.
    Sorry to say this, I hope it is understandable.

    - The printing time of the body is about 30 hours, around 50 for the
    whole viewer with all other parts. Jeroen's estimate of 10 was
    unfortunately too optimistic:-)

    - I don't have any team and nothing that could be called a company (so
    far:-)

    With best regards,

    Matej







    On 6/14/21 2:21 PM, Jeroen de Wijs wrote:
     >
     > I want to coment on your note on that what Matej is doing which is
     > possible within his production options. Matej is not running a large
     > factory.
     > As small company I know how difficult it is to find solutions to
    produce
     > viewers in low quantities and keep the costs down. Matej and his
    team
     > just applies a very low profit on their production costs to keep
    things
     > affordable.
     > Comparing his solution, actually a 3D printed version hand held
    version
     > of a digital viewer I already made in 2018 for exhibits with the
    double
     > 1440x1440 LCD's. Comparing the resolution of stand alone VR viewers
     > running on Android is, I think, not fair as those cannot do what his
     > (and mine) can do; connecting it to your computer or other
    sources with
     > more reasonable lower magnification.
     > Those LCDs are now for about 3 years on the market and I know theire
     > limits as well. it is currently the best resolution (and
    addressable)
     > you can have with this concept; controller-LCD set. while others go
     > higher with full HD or more for each eye is just because they
    position
     > the processor (android) close to the LCD, and not feed the LCD
    through
     > HDMI.
     >
     > If there was a solution for what Matej did build, then the big
    companies
     > already did.
     > If you want to make a enclosure of a viewer of plastic, and it
    will be a
     > complicated one, you have to deal with mould costs of at least
    20.000
     > Euro's for each part (made in Europe or US) And there is of
    coarse more
     > than one piece in the viewer. And series number of several thousend
     > pieces. Knowing the amount of people realy interested in this
    kind of
     > viewer, it is not worh doing that, you will loose money. The 3D
    comunity
     > will endorse you to build a reasonable priced viewer and the
    invester is
     > facing backruptsy because it won't sell or sell with loss.
     > 3D printing is one of the affordable new production methods to
    solve the
     > need of very low series custom build 3D stuff for our comunity. It
     > requires knowledge, craftmanship and perseverance. Besides the
    labor to
     > finish each part to look good, which is the back side of 3D printing
     > compared with metal milling.
     > It is good to design one 'platform' of what Matej and his team
    did as
     > start point for other media solutions as MF and all other 5.5"
    sized LCD
     > panels are close to the same size. Desiging all kinds of different
     > enclosures and solutions is for a small 3D company / team is not
     > reasonable meaning time and costs.
     > you are right if there might be a compromise. But complaning about
     > higher costs and pointing out that you don't want to compromise
    and only
     > want the best, is something you should only say to Sony or
    Samsung ;-)
     >
     > Printing such an enclosure of his viewer takes about 10 hours (it
    is a
     > guess but i might be right). not even talking about all the other
    parts.
     > Finishing it, taking all left overs of the printing process, also
    takes
     > the needed time. Making an adapter with all kinds of hooks, gaps and
     > parts should interlock with eachother is realy a chalange. His
    way of 3D
     > printing, FDM, needs a good printer, good printer settings and
    knoledge
     > how to design for that printing method, CAD software, etc. You
    actually
     > get a viewer build with the knowledge of someone who could work as
     > proffesional designer ;-) so the costs are not high at all.
    Privately,
     > and compared with big companies, yes it is higher then 3Dworld
    did with
     > their MF viewers. But considder my what I have just written.
     >
     > It is all a compromise as we, small 3D companies / teams and
    comunity,
     > do not have the knowledge and finacial power to achieve things
    the big
     > companies can. We can get close and there is alway's something to
     > complain about or to improve on what the members of the comunity
    have
     > build. But that is part of this comunity to encourage and to
    coment on
     > things. So also your coments Francois are welcome as well ;-)
     >
     > Jeroen.
     >
     >






[off-list] 3d-printed stereoscope update

Matej Bohac
 

Hi Bill,

Thank you very much for the offer!
I am just about to test a pair of 80mm lenses bought cheaply from "surplus shed". I'll see what they are like. But the conclusion might be that we really need a custom made product for a satisfactory result. I'll let you know how it turns out.

regards,

Matej

On 6/14/21 7:17 PM, Bill G wrote:
Matej, sorry I have been on the 3d sidelines for awhile as other projects have pulled me away from 3d.
It's sad you have to justify providing the ONLY current products for our tiny hobby.  I am sure you if you accounted for all your design hours into these projects, and supervising the builds, dealing with customers, whatever you net, would yield you less than minimum wage.  This is obviously a passion project for you, certainly NOT a "get wealthy project."  Please don't be discouraged by certain comments, you can never please everyone.
The 3d world viewers were priced for mass production.  Like all 3d projects, the volume never follows.  We all see how long 3dWorld stayed in business.  It was not a sustainable business model.
I am grateful you have the passion, expertise, and willingness to provide these products at such competitive prices for such low volume products.  I love the new modular system you moved to.  As u mentioned, it makes perfect sense for multi use and future expansion.  It will provide 3d viewing products for existing and new 3d users of many formats, something this field really needs.
I had some 75mm fl optics designed for MF 3d Film 50x60 which I prototyped over 10 years ago.  They are quite wide, about 55mm diam from memory.   I have the designs and manufacturing specifications.  If you are interested I can try to find the specifications and give them to you at no cost.  The problem will be the price... they were quoted 10 yrs ago at $80 each in volume of 100, this was due to the diameter, glass type, coatings.  They are superb for fixed IPD viewer as they have a very large eye box and a generous amount of Eye Relief, two significant benefits for a universal viewer, i.e. one size fits all.  I realize this would require another new design to hold these optics vs. what you are planning to use.  It seems optics manufacturing pricing is falling a bit, so maybe they can be built at a slightly lower cost today.  I suggest u manually check the fl of each optic and pair them when u get a batch of them, before inserting in the viewer.  Nominal fl and actual fl can vary.  This is a result of low manufacturing tolerance of the glass to keep the price at these low levels.
Bill G
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 9:48 AM Matej Bohac <matej@boha.cz <mailto:matej@boha.cz>> wrote:
Thanks to everyone for the comments and especially to Jeroen, who
answered some of the remarks. Just a few things I'd like to clarify:
- The evolution of digital technologies is so fast that designing a
specific solution for a particular type of displays or phones is very
problematic. The "modular design" allows to simply adapt the viewer to
any new type of display by making a new back, without having to change
the whole body. And, from the perspective of the user, without
having to
buy a new body. If you pointed me to a better type of displays than the
ones I linked I can possibly make a housing for them. The same with
smartphones.
- The modular design does not add much to the price of the printing.
The
price you refer to ($100 for the XZ Premium viewer) was simply
unbearable with all the effort put in re-designing the viewer according
to the response and demands I received. I designed and made the first
viewers for my friends, out of pure enthusiasm.
Development of any product requires an enormous amount of work, test
printing, buying and testing components and other expenses and as we
all
know, the prospective production volume is ridiculously low here.
The body is not just "plastic". There are metal gears and other parts
and the assembly requires an amount of handwork that is not negligible.
Sorry to say this, I hope it is understandable.
- The printing time of the body is about 30 hours, around 50 for the
whole viewer with all other parts. Jeroen's estimate of 10 was
unfortunately too optimistic:-)
- I don't have any team and nothing that could be called a company (so
far:-)
With best regards,
Matej
On 6/14/21 2:21 PM, Jeroen de Wijs wrote:
>
> I want to coment on your note on that what Matej is doing which is
> possible within his production options. Matej is not running a large
> factory.
> As small company I know how difficult it is to find solutions to
produce
> viewers in low quantities and keep the costs down. Matej and his
team
> just applies a very low profit on their production costs to keep
things
> affordable.
> Comparing his solution, actually a 3D printed version hand held
version
> of a digital viewer I already made in 2018 for exhibits with the
double
> 1440x1440 LCD's. Comparing the resolution of stand alone VR viewers
> running on Android is, I think, not fair as those cannot do what his
> (and mine) can do; connecting it to your computer or other
sources with
> more reasonable lower magnification.
> Those LCDs are now for about 3 years on the market and I know theire
> limits as well. it is currently the best resolution (and
addressable)
> you can have with this concept; controller-LCD set. while others go
> higher with full HD or more for each eye is just because they
position
> the processor (android) close to the LCD, and not feed the LCD
through
> HDMI.
>
> If there was a solution for what Matej did build, then the big
companies
> already did.
> If you want to make a enclosure of a viewer of plastic, and it
will be a
> complicated one, you have to deal with mould costs of at least
20.000
> Euro's for each part (made in Europe or US) And there is of
coarse more
> than one piece in the viewer. And series number of several thousend
> pieces. Knowing the amount of people realy interested in this
kind of
> viewer, it is not worh doing that, you will loose money. The 3D
comunity
> will endorse you to build a reasonable priced viewer and the
invester is
> facing backruptsy because it won't sell or sell with loss.
> 3D printing is one of the affordable new production methods to
solve the
> need of very low series custom build 3D stuff for our comunity. It
> requires knowledge, craftmanship and perseverance. Besides the
labor to
> finish each part to look good, which is the back side of 3D printing
> compared with metal milling.
> It is good to design one 'platform' of what Matej and his team
did as
> start point for other media solutions as MF and all other 5.5"
sized LCD
> panels are close to the same size. Desiging all kinds of different
> enclosures and solutions is for a small 3D company / team is not
> reasonable meaning time and costs.
> you are right if there might be a compromise. But complaning about
> higher costs and pointing out that you don't want to compromise
and only
> want the best, is something you should only say to Sony or
Samsung ;-)
>
> Printing such an enclosure of his viewer takes about 10 hours (it
is a
> guess but i might be right). not even talking about all the other
parts.
> Finishing it, taking all left overs of the printing process, also
takes
> the needed time. Making an adapter with all kinds of hooks, gaps and
> parts should interlock with eachother is realy a chalange. His
way of 3D
> printing, FDM, needs a good printer, good printer settings and
knoledge
> how to design for that printing method, CAD software, etc. You
actually
> get a viewer build with the knowledge of someone who could work as
> proffesional designer ;-) so the costs are not high at all.
Privately,
> and compared with big companies, yes it is higher then 3Dworld
did with
> their MF viewers. But considder my what I have just written.
>
> It is all a compromise as we, small 3D companies / teams and
comunity,
> do not have the knowledge and finacial power to achieve things
the big
> companies can. We can get close and there is alway's something to
> complain about or to improve on what the members of the comunity
have
> build. But that is part of this comunity to encourage and to
coment on
> things. So also your coments Francois are welcome as well ;-)
>
> Jeroen.
>
>


Re: Maurice Bonnet 3D Festival - July 10 & 11

John Rupkalvis
 

Maurice Bonnet also designed and built some of the largest and highest
quality professional lenticular film and glass plate cameras.

On 6/12/21, Laurent DOLDI (Toulouse, France) <doldi.doldi@orange.fr> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 01:11 PM, Mike Brown wrote:


Maurice Bonnet is generally credited with having produced the finest 3D
lenticulars ever made.
I just heard about this event - wish I could attend:

Yes, I will go there (luckily only 45 minutes away from home).
There will be lenticular experts like *Henri Clement* :
https://lenticulaire.fr/Exposition.html
and *Christian Gimel*
http://serge.gidon.free.fr/alpes-stereo/Gimel/index.html





--
John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

[image: Picture]


Re: 3d-printed stereoscope update

Matej Bohac
 

Are you printing these yourself?  If yes, May I ask what printer you are using?
Yes, I have the Prusa MK3S

What material are you using for the 3D printing?
I prefer PLA for these projects. I like the mechanical characteristics and the way it looks. A little bit problematic is the low resistance to higher temperatures - the viewer can warp when left in a car etc.

M.


Re: 3d-printed stereoscope update

Bill G
 

Matej, sorry I have been on the 3d sidelines for awhile as other projects have pulled me away from 3d.
It's sad you have to justify providing the ONLY current products for our tiny hobby.  I am sure you if you accounted for all your design hours into these projects, and supervising the builds, dealing with customers, whatever you net, would yield you less than minimum wage.  This is obviously a passion project for you, certainly NOT a "get wealthy project."  Please don't be discouraged by certain comments, you can never please everyone.

The 3d world viewers were priced for mass production.  Like all 3d projects, the volume never follows.  We all see how long 3dWorld stayed in business.  It was not a sustainable business model.
I am grateful you have the passion, expertise, and willingness to provide these products at such competitive prices for such low volume products.  I love the new modular system you moved to.  As u mentioned, it makes perfect sense for multi use and future expansion.  It will provide 3d viewing products for existing and new 3d users of many formats, something this field really needs.

I had some 75mm fl optics designed for MF 3d Film 50x60 which I prototyped over 10 years ago.  They are quite wide, about 55mm diam from memory.   I have the designs and manufacturing specifications.  If you are interested I can try to find the specifications and give them to you at no cost.  The problem will be the price... they were quoted 10 yrs ago at $80 each in volume of 100, this was due to the diameter, glass type, coatings.  They are superb for fixed IPD viewer as they have a very large eye box and a generous amount of Eye Relief, two significant benefits for a universal viewer, i.e. one size fits all.  I realize this would require another new design to hold these optics vs. what you are planning to use.  It seems optics manufacturing pricing is falling a bit, so maybe they can be built at a slightly lower cost today.  I suggest u manually check the fl of each optic and pair them when u get a batch of them, before inserting in the viewer.  Nominal fl and actual fl can vary.  This is a result of low manufacturing tolerance of the glass to keep the price at these low levels. 
Bill G


On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 9:48 AM Matej Bohac <matej@...> wrote:
Thanks to everyone for the comments and especially to Jeroen, who
answered some of the remarks. Just a few things I'd like to clarify:

- The evolution of digital technologies is so fast that designing a
specific solution for a particular type of displays or phones is very
problematic. The "modular design" allows to simply adapt the viewer to
any new type of display by making a new back, without having to change
the whole body. And, from the perspective of the user, without having to
buy a new body. If you pointed me to a better type of displays than the
ones I linked I can possibly make a housing for them. The same with
smartphones.

- The modular design does not add much to the price of the printing. The
price you refer to ($100 for the XZ Premium viewer) was simply
unbearable with all the effort put in re-designing the viewer according
to the response and demands I received. I designed and made the first
viewers for my friends, out of pure enthusiasm.
Development of any product requires an enormous amount of work, test
printing, buying and testing components and other expenses and as we all
know, the prospective production volume is ridiculously low here.
The body is not just "plastic". There are metal gears and other parts
and the assembly requires an amount of handwork that is not negligible.
Sorry to say this, I hope it is understandable.

- The printing time of the body is about 30 hours, around 50 for the
whole viewer with all other parts. Jeroen's estimate of 10 was
unfortunately too optimistic:-)

- I don't have any team and nothing that could be called a company (so
far:-)

With best regards,

Matej







On 6/14/21 2:21 PM, Jeroen de Wijs wrote:
>
> I want to coment on your note on that what Matej is doing which is
> possible within his production options. Matej is not running a large
> factory.
> As small company I know how difficult it is to find solutions to produce
> viewers in low quantities and keep the costs down. Matej and his team
> just applies a very low profit on their production costs to keep things
> affordable.
> Comparing his solution, actually a 3D printed version hand held version
> of a digital viewer I already made in 2018 for exhibits with the double
> 1440x1440 LCD's. Comparing the resolution of stand alone VR viewers
> running on Android is, I think, not fair as those cannot do what his
> (and mine) can do; connecting it to your computer or other sources with
> more reasonable lower magnification.
> Those LCDs are now for about 3 years on the market and I know theire
> limits as well. it is currently the best resolution (and addressable)
> you can have with this concept; controller-LCD set. while others go
> higher with full HD or more for each eye is just because they position
> the processor (android) close to the LCD, and not feed the LCD through
> HDMI.
>
> If there was a solution for what Matej did build, then the big companies
> already did.
> If you want to make a enclosure of a viewer of plastic, and it will be a
> complicated one, you have to deal with mould costs of at least 20.000
> Euro's for each part (made in Europe or US) And there is of coarse more
> than one piece in the viewer. And series number of several thousend
> pieces. Knowing the amount of people realy interested in this kind of
> viewer, it is not worh doing that, you will loose money. The 3D comunity
> will endorse you to build a reasonable priced viewer and the invester is
> facing backruptsy because it won't sell or sell with loss.
> 3D printing is one of the affordable new production methods to solve the
> need of very low series custom build 3D stuff for our comunity. It
> requires knowledge, craftmanship and perseverance. Besides the labor to
> finish each part to look good, which is the back side of 3D printing
> compared with metal milling.
> It is good to design one 'platform' of what Matej and his team did as
> start point for other media solutions as MF and all other 5.5" sized LCD
> panels are close to the same size. Desiging all kinds of different
> enclosures and solutions is for a small 3D company / team is not
> reasonable meaning time and costs.
> you are right if there might be a compromise. But complaning about
> higher costs and pointing out that you don't want to compromise and only
> want the best, is something you should only say to Sony or Samsung ;-)
>
> Printing such an enclosure of his viewer takes about 10 hours (it is a
> guess but i might be right). not even talking about all the other parts.
> Finishing it, taking all left overs of the printing process, also takes
> the needed time. Making an adapter with all kinds of hooks, gaps and
> parts should interlock with eachother is realy a chalange. His way of 3D
> printing, FDM, needs a good printer, good printer settings and knoledge
> how to design for that printing method, CAD software, etc. You actually
> get a viewer build with the knowledge of someone who could work as
> proffesional designer ;-) so the costs are not high at all. Privately,
> and compared with big companies, yes it is higher then 3Dworld did with
> their MF viewers. But considder my what I have just written.
>
> It is all a compromise as we, small 3D companies / teams and comunity,
> do not have the knowledge and finacial power to achieve things the big
> companies can. We can get close and there is alway's something to
> complain about or to improve on what the members of the comunity have
> build. But that is part of this comunity to encourage and to coment on
> things. So also your coments Francois are welcome as well ;-)
>
> Jeroen.
>
>






Re: 3d-printed stereoscope update

robert mcafee
 

Are you printing these yourself?  If yes, May I ask what printer you are using?

What material are you using for the 3D printing?




On Monday, June 14, 2021, 12:47 PM, Matej Bohac <matej@...> wrote:

Thanks to everyone for the comments and especially to Jeroen, who
answered some of the remarks. Just a few things I'd like to clarify:

- The evolution of digital technologies is so fast that designing a
specific solution for a particular type of displays or phones is very
problematic. The "modular design" allows to simply adapt the viewer to
any new type of display by making a new back, without having to change
the whole body. And, from the perspective of the user, without having to
buy a new body. If you pointed me to a better type of displays than the
ones I linked I can possibly make a housing for them. The same with
smartphones.

- The modular design does not add much to the price of the printing. The
price you refer to ($100 for the XZ Premium viewer) was simply
unbearable with all the effort put in re-designing the viewer according
to the response and demands I received. I designed and made the first
viewers for my friends, out of pure enthusiasm.
Development of any product requires an enormous amount of work, test
printing, buying and testing components and other expenses and as we all
know, the prospective production volume is ridiculously low here.
The body is not just "plastic". There are metal gears and other parts
and the assembly requires an amount of handwork that is not negligible.
Sorry to say this, I hope it is understandable.

- The printing time of the body is about 30 hours, around 50 for the
whole viewer with all other parts. Jeroen's estimate of 10 was
unfortunately too optimistic:-)

- I don't have any team and nothing that could be called a company (so
far:-)

With best regards,

Matej







On 6/14/21 2:21 PM, Jeroen de Wijs wrote:
>
> I want to coment on your note on that what Matej is doing which is
> possible within his production options. Matej is not running a large
> factory.
> As small company I know how difficult it is to find solutions to produce
> viewers in low quantities and keep the costs down. Matej and his team
> just applies a very low profit on their production costs to keep things
> affordable.
> Comparing his solution, actually a 3D printed version hand held version
> of a digital viewer I already made in 2018 for exhibits with the double
> 1440x1440 LCD's. Comparing the resolution of stand alone VR viewers
> running on Android is, I think, not fair as those cannot do what his
> (and mine) can do; connecting it to your computer or other sources with
> more reasonable lower magnification.
> Those LCDs are now for about 3 years on the market and I know theire
> limits as well. it is currently the best resolution (and addressable)
> you can have with this concept; controller-LCD set. while others go
> higher with full HD or more for each eye is just because they position
> the processor (android) close to the LCD, and not feed the LCD through
> HDMI.
>
> If there was a solution for what Matej did build, then the big companies
> already did.
> If you want to make a enclosure of a viewer of plastic, and it will be a
> complicated one, you have to deal with mould costs of at least 20.000
> Euro's for each part (made in Europe or US) And there is of coarse more
> than one piece in the viewer. And series number of several thousend
> pieces. Knowing the amount of people realy interested in this kind of
> viewer, it is not worh doing that, you will loose money. The 3D comunity
> will endorse you to build a reasonable priced viewer and the invester is
> facing backruptsy because it won't sell or sell with loss.
> 3D printing is one of the affordable new production methods to solve the
> need of very low series custom build 3D stuff for our comunity. It
> requires knowledge, craftmanship and perseverance. Besides the labor to
> finish each part to look good, which is the back side of 3D printing
> compared with metal milling.
> It is good to design one 'platform' of what Matej and his team did as
> start point for other media solutions as MF and all other 5.5" sized LCD
> panels are close to the same size. Desiging all kinds of different
> enclosures and solutions is for a small 3D company / team is not
> reasonable meaning time and costs.
> you are right if there might be a compromise. But complaning about
> higher costs and pointing out that you don't want to compromise and only
> want the best, is something you should only say to Sony or Samsung ;-)
>
> Printing such an enclosure of his viewer takes about 10 hours (it is a
> guess but i might be right). not even talking about all the other parts.
> Finishing it, taking all left overs of the printing process, also takes
> the needed time. Making an adapter with all kinds of hooks, gaps and
> parts should interlock with eachother is realy a chalange. His way of 3D
> printing, FDM, needs a good printer, good printer settings and knoledge
> how to design for that printing method, CAD software, etc. You actually
> get a viewer build with the knowledge of someone who could work as
> proffesional designer ;-) so the costs are not high at all. Privately,
> and compared with big companies, yes it is higher then 3Dworld did with
> their MF viewers. But considder my what I have just written.
>
> It is all a compromise as we, small 3D companies / teams and comunity,
> do not have the knowledge and finacial power to achieve things the big
> companies can. We can get close and there is alway's something to
> complain about or to improve on what the members of the comunity have
> build. But that is part of this comunity to encourage and to coment on
> things. So also your coments Francois are welcome as well ;-)
>
> Jeroen.
>
>






Re: 3d-printed stereoscope update

Matej Bohac
 

Thanks to everyone for the comments and especially to Jeroen, who answered some of the remarks. Just a few things I'd like to clarify:

- The evolution of digital technologies is so fast that designing a specific solution for a particular type of displays or phones is very problematic. The "modular design" allows to simply adapt the viewer to any new type of display by making a new back, without having to change the whole body. And, from the perspective of the user, without having to buy a new body. If you pointed me to a better type of displays than the ones I linked I can possibly make a housing for them. The same with smartphones.

- The modular design does not add much to the price of the printing. The price you refer to ($100 for the XZ Premium viewer) was simply unbearable with all the effort put in re-designing the viewer according to the response and demands I received. I designed and made the first viewers for my friends, out of pure enthusiasm.
Development of any product requires an enormous amount of work, test printing, buying and testing components and other expenses and as we all know, the prospective production volume is ridiculously low here.
The body is not just "plastic". There are metal gears and other parts and the assembly requires an amount of handwork that is not negligible.
Sorry to say this, I hope it is understandable.

- The printing time of the body is about 30 hours, around 50 for the whole viewer with all other parts. Jeroen's estimate of 10 was unfortunately too optimistic:-)

- I don't have any team and nothing that could be called a company (so far:-)

With best regards,

Matej

On 6/14/21 2:21 PM, Jeroen de Wijs wrote:
I want to coment on your note on that what Matej is doing which is possible within his production options. Matej is not running a large factory.
As small company I know how difficult it is to find solutions to produce viewers in low quantities and keep the costs down. Matej and his team just applies a very low profit on their production costs to keep things affordable.
Comparing his solution, actually a 3D printed version hand held version of a digital viewer I already made in 2018 for exhibits with the double 1440x1440 LCD's. Comparing the resolution of stand alone VR viewers running on Android is, I think, not fair as those cannot do what his (and mine) can do; connecting it to your computer or other sources with more reasonable lower magnification.
Those LCDs are now for about 3 years on the market and I know theire limits as well. it is currently the best resolution (and addressable) you can have with this concept; controller-LCD set. while others go higher with full HD or more for each eye is just because they position the processor (android) close to the LCD, and not feed the LCD through HDMI.
If there was a solution for what Matej did build, then the big companies already did.
If you want to make a enclosure of a viewer of plastic, and it will be a complicated one, you have to deal with mould costs of at least 20.000 Euro's for each part (made in Europe or US) And there is of coarse more than one piece in the viewer. And series number of several thousend pieces. Knowing the amount of people realy interested in this kind of viewer, it is not worh doing that, you will loose money. The 3D comunity will endorse you to build a reasonable priced viewer and the invester is facing backruptsy because it won't sell or sell with loss.
3D printing is one of the affordable new production methods to solve the need of very low series custom build 3D stuff for our comunity. It requires knowledge, craftmanship and perseverance. Besides the labor to finish each part to look good, which is the back side of 3D printing compared with metal milling.
It is good to design one 'platform' of what Matej and his team did as start point for other media solutions as MF and all other 5.5" sized LCD panels are close to the same size. Desiging all kinds of different enclosures and solutions is for a small 3D company / team is not reasonable meaning time and costs.
you are right if there might be a compromise. But complaning about higher costs and pointing out that you don't want to compromise and only want the best, is something you should only say to Sony or Samsung ;-)
Printing such an enclosure of his viewer takes about 10 hours (it is a guess but i might be right). not even talking about all the other parts. Finishing it, taking all left overs of the printing process, also takes the needed time. Making an adapter with all kinds of hooks, gaps and parts should interlock with eachother is realy a chalange. His way of 3D printing, FDM, needs a good printer, good printer settings and knoledge how to design for that printing method, CAD software, etc. You actually get a viewer build with the knowledge of someone who could work as proffesional designer ;-) so the costs are not high at all. Privately, and compared with big companies, yes it is higher then 3Dworld did with their MF viewers. But considder my what I have just written.
It is all a compromise as we, small 3D companies / teams and comunity, do not have the knowledge and finacial power to achieve things the big companies can. We can get close and there is alway's something to complain about or to improve on what the members of the comunity have build. But that is part of this comunity to encourage and to coment on things. So also your coments Francois are welcome as well ;-)
Jeroen.


Re: Twin camera Overlapping/Staggering

Mike Bittner
 

I always use Cosima for problem images that come up with my twin SDM rigs. Cosima analysis of the adjusted pair, I see some issues that might correct after multiple runs with the software ==>

For disparity computation, 56 % of the image area have been evaluated.
The original image width is 953 pixels, 1 per mille corresponds to  0.95 pixels.
 
Error analysis:
---------------
Left previewer scaling   =    0.00 percent
Right previewer scaling  =    0.00 percent
Mean error of height     =    0.36 pixel   (right image upturned)
Mean error of size       =    2.19 percent (right image oversized)
Mean error of rotation   =    0.40 degree  (approx. identical rotation)
Mean error of vergence_v =   -0.17 degree  (approx. parallel shooting axes)
Mean error of vergence_h =   -0.52 degree  (approx. equal shooting levels)
Near point disparity     =  -42.09 pixel   (near point before stereo window)
 
Stereo window after the correction:
-----------------------------------
Far point disparity      =   61 pixel  
Near point disparity     =   23 pixel  
Absolute deviation       =   38 pixel  
Relative image deviation = 1/25 of the image width
......................   =   40 Promille (image based)
 
Output image:
-------------
Image width               =   953 pixel  
Image height              =   730 pixel  
Image width to height     = 1.305
 
A projection ratio has not been given. The resulting image shows a
width-to-height ratio of  1.31. It is assumed, that the image will be projected
with it's full width and it's relative deviation shouldn't exceed 33.33 promille
 
Deviation critical for huge projection (depends on image content and mounting!)
Image suited for prints!
Warning: Near point very far behind the stereo window, try to set near point closer to the stereo window!
Warning: critical far point disparity, please avoid huge projection -
or adjust projectors to set the stereo window in front of the screen!


Re: Android Phone with Depth Mapping Question

robert mcafee
 

Qoobex website shows the Q phone in stock at $699 US. Moreover they also show a 3D glasses free tablet for $499. 

Anybody know anything about this tablet beyond what is on the website?




On Monday, June 14, 2021, 7:51 AM, Laurent DOLDI (Toulouse, France) <doldi.doldi@...> wrote:

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 09:49 PM, John Rupkalvis wrote:
One is the IQH made by JS Digitech
Seems good but out of stock. Am I the only one here that missed the announcement of this phone last year? (according to JS Digitech Facebook page)


Re: 3d-printed stereoscope update

Jeroen de Wijs
 


I want to coment on your note on that what Matej is doing which is possible within his production options. Matej is not running a large factory.
As small company I know how difficult it is to find solutions to produce viewers in low quantities and keep the costs down. Matej and his team just applies a very low profit on their production costs to keep things affordable.
Comparing his solution, actually a 3D printed version hand held version of a digital viewer I already made in 2018 for exhibits with the double 1440x1440 LCD's. Comparing the resolution of stand alone VR viewers running on Android is, I think, not fair as those cannot do what his (and mine) can do; connecting it to your computer or other sources with more reasonable lower magnification. 
Those LCDs are now for about 3 years on the market and I know theire limits as well. it is currently the best resolution (and addressable) you can have with this concept; controller-LCD set. while others go higher with full HD or more for each eye is just because they position the processor (android) close to the LCD, and not feed the LCD through HDMI. 

If there was a solution for what Matej did build, then the big companies already did. 
If you want to make a enclosure of a viewer of plastic, and it will be a complicated one, you have to deal with mould costs of at least 20.000 Euro's for each part (made in Europe or US) And there is of coarse more than one piece in the viewer. And series number of several thousend pieces. Knowing the amount of people realy interested in this kind of viewer, it is not worh doing that, you will loose money. The 3D comunity will endorse you to build a reasonable priced viewer and the invester is facing backruptsy because it won't sell or sell with loss. 
3D printing is one of the affordable new production methods to solve the need of very low series custom build 3D stuff for our comunity. It requires knowledge, craftmanship and perseverance. Besides the labor to finish each part to look good, which is the back side of 3D printing compared with metal milling. 
It is good to design one 'platform' of what Matej and his team did as start point for other media solutions as MF and all other 5.5" sized LCD panels are close to the same size. Desiging all kinds of different enclosures and solutions is for a small 3D company / team is not reasonable meaning time and costs. 
you are right if there might be a compromise. But complaning about higher costs and pointing out that you don't want to compromise and only want the best, is something you should only say to Sony or Samsung ;-) 

Printing such an enclosure of his viewer takes about 10 hours (it is a guess but i might be right). not even talking about all the other parts. Finishing it, taking all left overs of the printing process, also takes the needed time. Making an adapter with all kinds of hooks, gaps and parts should interlock with eachother is realy a chalange. His way of 3D printing, FDM, needs a good printer, good printer settings and knoledge how to design for that printing method, CAD software, etc. You actually get a viewer build with the knowledge of someone who could work as proffesional designer ;-) so the costs are not high at all. Privately, and compared with big companies, yes it is higher then 3Dworld did with their MF viewers. But considder my what I have just written. 

It is all a compromise as we, small 3D companies / teams and comunity, do not have the knowledge and finacial power to achieve things the big companies can. We can get close and there is alway's something to complain about or to improve on what the members of the comunity have build. But that is part of this comunity to encourage and to coment on things. So also your coments Francois are welcome as well ;-)

Jeroen.


Re: Android Phone with Depth Mapping Question

Laurent DOLDI (Toulouse, France)
 

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 09:49 PM, John Rupkalvis wrote:
One is the IQH made by JS Digitech
Seems good but out of stock. Am I the only one here that missed the announcement of this phone last year? (according to JS Digitech Facebook page)


Re: Android Phone with Depth Mapping Question

Laurent DOLDI (Toulouse, France)
 

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 05:59 AM, robert mcafee wrote:
Does anyone know of any Android phones with Lidar?
The Huawei P30 Pro has a Time Of Flight camera to generate depth maps. I suspect it is similar to Lidar, and this P30 Pro (with 256 GB, a huge battery etc.) costs 500 Euros instead of 1270 Euros for an Apple iPhone 12 Pro.
I do not work for Huawei LOL


Re: Android Phone with Depth Mapping Question

robert mcafee
 

I am new to depth maps created in phone or by any other means. I seem to recall the best depth maps resulted from the Apple iPhone 12 Pro which uses Lidar to measure the distances. 

Does anyone know of any Android phones with Lidar?

I believe it was Francois who noted there are some new phones or tablets or both coming to the market which will have features of interest to stereo photographers. He was not able to provide any details at this time (NDA agreement I assume).  

Economic impact of the pandemic and the world wide chip shortage will probably cause further launch delays.   But maybe one of these will have a 3D display and generate depth maps?  Since you can create depth maps form Caputo’s program and a stereo pair, you may want to wait a few months to see what is coming down the pipeline. 




On Monday, June 14, 2021, 3:12 AM, Laurent DOLDI (Toulouse, France) <doldi.doldi@...> wrote:

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 01:19 PM, David Starkman wrote:
do any of you have a very new model that has the depth mapping and good specs that is smaller than 6" that you would recommend?
Two months ago I purchased a Huawei P30 Pro New Edition, its 3 cameras are excellent (sometimes better than my Pentax K3-III DSLR body costing 2000 Euros!).
I has Google services installed (as opposed to the P40 pro etc.), Play store etc.
The aperture mode activates the TOF sensor which (also in landscape mode) embeds a depth map into the JPG file.
And SPM recognizes such depth maps and extracts them to create a stereo image with the deviation of your choice.
Also it has a X5 lens OPTICALLY stabilized and very good (135 mm equivalent).
Plus an ultra wide angle lens, and naturally a regular wide angle sensor.
Takes also RAW images, actually in DNG format which can be developed with old software versions.
510 Euros in France.
 

941 - 960 of 130796