The term "3D" and interactive panoramas.

[HansKeesom]

by HansKeesom » Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:06 pm

Semantics of 360° or 3D. Complicated in any case.

- The less people know, the more 3D is the adequate term, because you can turn and that's what they expect.
- I personally don't like 3D term, because with my past of game developer, it would mean I can move around in the tour ( and the tour is polygon based ).

3D is perfectly acceptable for me as it allow to teach what a tour is. And in fact, it is because when you put a rectangular spot over a tv screen to add your own video, this rectangular spot is a real quad that turns in 3D around your fixed point view.

I think the real key is 'fixed point of view' or not fixed point of view ( 3D over true 3D )

It is not about the fixed point of the viewer. If the viewer is fixed but is fed different pictures to each eye, then there can be 3D. Like 3D movies wearing these special glasses.

There was a Belgium guy that did make a panorama with two camera's. If you wear the green/red glasses you did indeed have a 3D panorama, though having a fixed point of view. So 3D panorama is possible, but no-one here is making them yet.

Having or not having a fixed point of view makes the difference between a static scene and a synthesised reality. That reality can be totally imaginary and therefore a virtual reality, or it can be based on the real world because it was first photographed by a moving camera, from with 3D information and subsequencyly polygons were generated. From these polygons reality can be shown again. It is then a virtual reality but based on real reality.

[klausesser]

by klausesser » Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:28 pm

So 3D panorama is possible, but no-one here is making them yet.

the problem here: you have 2 NPPs . . .

Having or not having a fixed point of view makes the difference between a static scene and a synthesised reality. That reality can be totally imaginary and therefore a virtual reality, or it can be based on the real world because it was first photographed by a moving camera, from with 3D information and subsequencyly polygons were generated. From these polygons reality can be shown again. It is then a virtual reality but based on real reality.

Talking about "3D" when it comes to interactive panoramas people expect what isn´t there in reality: depth to move in.

When you´re filming a movie the camera moves in a 3D space - sidewards, up and down and forewards/backwards.

Depth in an interactive panorama can only be simulated by scaling . . which obviously people seem to take for moving on the "z" axis.

In real 3D spaces (as we create in Maya, Max or C4D and so on) with real 3D objects you can move on every axis - you can go around objects and you can look behind objects.
3D-animation isn´t interactive - yet (besides scrolling the movie forwards and backwards . . ).

Fact: interactive panoramas are not 3D - not even 360x180° interactive video is.

best, Klaus

Last edited by klausesser on Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[HansKeesom]

by HansKeesom » Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:49 pm

How the Belgium guy fixed things I don't know but it looked great

Scaling has indeed nothing to do with 3d.

I can see depth while standing still, but I do agree that moving enhances the experience

[klausesser]

by klausesser » Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:00 pm

How the Belgium guy fixed things I don't know but it looked great

On what do you refer?

best, Klaus

[HansKeesom]

by HansKeesom » Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:07 pm

A Belguim guy that used a stereo camera or two camera's to make a panorama. Because of that he could provide a left eye and a right eye image. This was mixed somehow, provided a stereoscopic panorama.

sorry I have no linkto him, but here is something else that might interest you http://www.naimark.net/writing/spie97.html

[klausesser]

by klausesser » Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:34 pm

A Belguim guy that used a stereo camera or two camera's to make a panorama. Because of that he could provide a left eye and a right eye image. This was mixed somehow, provided a stereoscopic panorama.

sorry I have no linkto him, but here is something else that might interest you http://www.naimark.net/writing/spie97.html

Ah - thanks!

I had some dicussions with collegue cameraman who´s very active in that theme (i´m a cameraman coming from the 35mm/70mm analogue film aera ).

Having to find a comon NPP for both lenses isn´t such a problem with moving content these days - but it definitely would be with stitching still images and watching them hires.

There´s technology to constantly adapt parallaxe for a natural behavior while constantly changing perspective: http://video.golem.de/audio-video/6349/peter-jackson-ueber-3d-in-the-hobbit.html

I guess that would be more complicated with still-imaging because you watch each image much longer - and not just a 1/50 sec (they use 48/50/60fps instead of 24/25/30fps).
So i guess interactive 360x180° panoramas - like we know them - in stereo will take quite some time ahead to come - if it comes at all.

But it´s very interesting anyway!

best to you, Klaus

[HansKeesom]

by HansKeesom » Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:11 am

As I already stated, if you make 2D photos from different camera locations you can have 3D information. This is what is called 3D photography, often done with camera's with two lenses next to another.

The point is, when making a panorama the camera stays very exactly in one point in space, the nodal point. That is why there is no 3D information in a panorama.

Object photography is something completely different then panorama photography

Last edited by HansKeesom on Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

[klausesser]

by klausesser » Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:27 am

As for 3D animation.. What is 3D animation???. There are many ways to view this and describe it..

No. There´s only one way to describe it: an animated 3D object in a true 3D space. Like this: www.klausesser.de/boomS3.mov

I built the boomerang as 3D object, textured/mapped it, set 8 lights in the scene and animated it - let it fly along a path in the 3D space.

I can alway change everything in the construction - just like you can move your furniture around in the rooms of your house.

THAT is 3D-animation. Making something LOOK LIKE 3D doesnt´t make it 3D at all. Interactive Panoramas not even look like 3D to
experienced users - they can see on the first glimp that they deal with a flat world.

Klaus

P.S.:

I could take a sphere - made from 2D-images - to let the boomerang fly inside . .

But making an interactive panorama using an app like PTP wouldn´t allow to fly around the boomerang but only allows the boomerang fly inside the panorama-sphere - which is built from flat images.
It needs a movie to be made. Finally we might use it in the way interactive 360° videos are used - like in the examples from Joergen´s very clever made 360Rig.

Last edited by klausesser on Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

[klausesser]

by klausesser » Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:03 pm

I am making the argument that panos can be referred to as a 3D since in part they act like 3D and have 3D features, therefore they are 3D by virtue of their Maths.

ESPECIALLY in the math-aspect panos should be NOT referred to as 3D! You´re mixing facts here. They don´t "act like 3D" and they definitely don´t have "3D features".

LOOKING like George Clooney definitely wouldn´t MAKE me George Clooney . . . . . (i don´t look like GC anyway )

Klaus

[klausesser]

by klausesser » Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:06 pm

:rolleyes:

Destiny

Well, Destiny: facts don´t care for emotions . . .

Klaus

[klausesser]

by klausesser » Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:36 pm

I have 2013 versions to play and test 3D stuff with... Which do you find the best of the best...??

That´s a matter of personal taste in the end. The vital point is: not only talking about it but doing it . . . beyond (sorry) wire-cages and just very basic standard-models.

Klaus

Last edited by klausesser on Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[klausesser]

by klausesser » Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:23 pm

I rather like Shake but that would be way beyond your knowledge area.

Well - in fact Shake is one of my main-applications . . . but i´m switching to Smoke/Flame actually.

Destiny: i don´t like the insulting attitude you react with on clear and simple facts which i speak out.
For that reason i don´t want to discuss hard facts with you any more.

Klaus

[klausesser]

by klausesser » Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:02 pm

Not to worry, I have provided him with some useful tips since I do have this knowledge and skills..

Of course you did, Destiny, of course.

Now: please stop this childish way of wasting my time.

Klaus

[klausesser]

by klausesser » Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:33 pm

I am a bit puzeled Herr Klaus with this 3D animation of yours.. We both know its just a default Pill primitive with a reflective map on a path and flaoting directional camera thats all fine, but where is the ground shadow which is just as easy to achive as with the reflective map.. After your comment about Ed's shadows and your statement about having an eye for detail and you were in awe why your comments upset Ed, I was just wondering where your keen eye for detail was on this day...

Look, Destiny: your "skills" easyly reveal from your statement.

1) Any experienced 3D user would recognize at first sight that there can be no shadows on the ground here - simply watch the perspective/fov . . .
2) IBL depends on the physical light of the recorded scene. When the scene´s available light is mainly diffuse - how would the object cast a shadow on the ground when it´s high over the ground?
It simply can´t.
Any "skillful" 3D user would know this fact also.

This test was about mirroing the surrounding sphere in the object and lighting the object using IBL.
Because of a mirroing object shows the behavior of the surrounding best i used an object that mirrors the surrounding.

As i wrote that was my first experimental use of a panorama-sphere combined with 3D in 2006 when i came into contact with AuotPano
and evaluated possibilities.

This "discussion" with you has reached some kind of kindergarden attitude. I don´t like that and i don´t want to be part of it any longer.
Though i´m too well educated for not answering posts i refuse to answer to your postings in the future.

Klaus

Last edited by klausesser on Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[klausesser]

by klausesser » Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:41 pm

"how would the object cast a shadow on the ground when it´s high over the ground? It simply can´t. "

I will explain why your statement is utter nonsense herr Klaus.. Every person in the world, just about every animal in the word and plant and and and.... has experienced at some stage a cloud shadow passing over them and casting a SHADOW!. oh but wait.. its impossible.. Its TOO FAR OVER THE GROUND, IT SIMPLY CANOT DO IT!... Well.. someone forgot to tell Mother Nature that one.. :lol: I have seen shadows cast from air plans way up in the sky and i have also seen a hot air balloon shadow while the balloon was way off the ground too... Your 3D pill is just off the ground in some places, so what your excuse?? :rolleyes:

Do you even know what "defused" light is in 3D...

Destiny...

Each thing in the world casts a shadow. Right. Being a photographer i´m dealing with lights and shadows for a very long time now.

But being a photographer i also know about the *nature* of light and shadows - you very obviously do not! You not even understand what i wrote about a scene´s ambient light . . .
In a very soft ambient light objects only cast shadows when they´re very close to a surface. When they´re not close to a surface the softness of the light "walks around" objects in a way no resp. almost invisible shadows appear.

Try yourself: hold your hand near to a wall and watch how the shadows behave in hard light (sunlight) and how they behave in soft ambient light. In hard light you will see the shadow of your hand even when you´re some meters away from the wall.
But in soft ambient light you wouldn´t see a shadow of your hand on that wall after you moved your hand away half a meter or a meter.

You see: in a hard and point-like light - which wasn´t in my scene - objects definitely cast very visible and more or less deep shadows . . . .

In my scene the ground where shadows of the object could have been visible was outside the fov (field of view) in relation to the camera´s/object´s perspective. So: when you don´t see the ground straight under the object: how would you see shadows on the ground? You wouldn´t.

Destiny: you´re on the best way towards ridiculousness argumenting the childish way you do. Do you really want that?

There´s nothing bad with lack of knowledge - that´s why we all learn each day. Everybody does.

Acting in a way as being the big expert needs to know what experts know. That´s very definitely your problem.

So i really suggest to hold back with talking that big and gather knowledge first.

E.O.D.

Klaus

[HansKeesom]

by HansKeesom » Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:55 pm

... in part they act like 3D

.

Yes for 2 of the 3 Dimensions they are

... and have 3D features

nope, that is " just your imagination...running away with you " adlib from Rolling Stones ;-)

[HansKeesom]

by HansKeesom » Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:59 pm

GUYS, GUYS, the point is.......that while you were debating and insulting I was making 2700 photos for panoramas. Get my point? Go out there and do some business!

Last edited by HansKeesom on Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[klausesser]

by klausesser » Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:50 pm

GUYS, GUYS, the point is.......that while you were debating and insulting I was making 2700 photos for panoramas. Get my point? Go out there and do some business!

right - but i´m anyway preparing for a tomorrow´s shooting while writing . . people-shooting for an advertising campaign´s bills hangig around all over the city - about 12 models on the image in an anyway crowded location. I´ll have to use artificial light (strobe light-banks) mixed with natural light in a way it looks absolutly natural in the end . . Will take several hours just to set up the light.

best, Klaus

[HansKeesom]

by HansKeesom » Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:05 pm

Go for it Klaus, make beautifull photos and earn some cash!

[klausesser]

by klausesser » Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:41 pm

Go for it Klaus, make beautifull photos and earn some cash!

You bet! And it´s not even 3D :cool:

best, Klaus

[HansKeesom]

by HansKeesom » Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:50 pm

Money is worth more when it is 2D, although you can fold it around and think it is 3D ;-)

[[bo]]

by [bo] » Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:56 am

I get a certain feeling lately that we may need a separate forum for Klaus exclusively, where the "Post reply" link will generate separate posts in reply of each sentence of the previous post.

[HansKeesom]

by HansKeesom » Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:05 pm

Hi Bo,

I think you need to take into consideration that Destiny and Artisan S. removed all their messages from this discussion. This makes it seems like Klaus was talking to himself when he was not.

Due to the content of the removed messages it was indeed better to remove them.

Klaus like me can be a little bit unaware of personal feelings of others when he makes his point, I find his contributions correct and allways to the point.

[klausesser]

by klausesser » Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:10 pm

']I get a certain feeling lately that we may need a separate forum for Klaus exclusively, where the "Post reply" link will generate separate posts in reply of each sentence of the previous post.

You´re right in the sense that i tend to react communicative even to nonsense instead of keeping my mouth shut . . . which definitely would be much wiser.

best, Klaus