AlexandreJ wrote: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 )
HansKeesom wrote:So 3D panorama is possible, but no-one here is making them yet.
HansKeesom wrote: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.
HansKeesom wrote: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
Destiny wrote:As for 3D animation.. What is 3D animation???. There are many ways to view this and describe it..
Destiny wrote: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.
Destiny wrote:I have 2013 versions to play and test 3D stuff with... Which do you find the best of the best...??
Destiny wrote:I rather like Shake but that would be way beyond your knowledge area.
Destiny wrote:Not to worry, I have provided him with some useful tips since I do have this knowledge and skills..
Destiny wrote: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...
Destiny wrote:"how would the object cast a shadow on the ground when itÂ´s high over the ground? It simply canÂ´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 wrote:... in part they act like 3D
Destiny wrote:... and have 3D features
HansKeesom wrote: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!
'[bo wrote:']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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests