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.

_________________
Regards, Hans Keesom
I stitch and render for other photographers. If you want to concentrate on your business and shooting you might want me do the stitching for you.

the problem here: you have 2 NPPs . . .


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

_________________
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

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

_________________
Regards, Hans Keesom
I stitch and render for other photographers. If you want to concentrate on your business and shooting you might want me do the stitching for you.

On what do you refer?

best, Klaus

_________________
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

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

_________________
Regards, Hans Keesom
I stitch and render for other photographers. If you want to concentrate on your business and shooting you might want me do the stitching for you.

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

_________________
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

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

_________________
Regards, Hans Keesom
I stitch and render for other photographers. If you want to concentrate on your business and shooting you might want me do the stitching for you.

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.

_________________
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

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

_________________
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

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

Klaus

_________________
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

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

_________________
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

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

_________________
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

Of course you did, Destiny, of course.

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

Klaus

_________________
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

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

_________________
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

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

_________________
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

Yes for 2 of the 3 Dimensions they are



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

_________________
Regards, Hans Keesom
I stitch and render for other photographers. If you want to concentrate on your business and shooting you might want me do the stitching for you.

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!

_________________
Regards, Hans Keesom
I stitch and render for other photographers. If you want to concentrate on your business and shooting you might want me do the stitching for you.

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

_________________
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

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

_________________
Regards, Hans Keesom
I stitch and render for other photographers. If you want to concentrate on your business and shooting you might want me do the stitching for you.

You bet! And it´s not even 3D :cool:

best, Klaus

_________________
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

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

_________________
Regards, Hans Keesom
I stitch and render for other photographers. If you want to concentrate on your business and shooting you might want me do the stitching for you.

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.

_________________
Some of my panoramas, posted in the Autopano Pro flickr group.

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.

_________________
Regards, Hans Keesom
I stitch and render for other photographers. If you want to concentrate on your business and shooting you might want me do the stitching for you.

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

_________________
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel