PDA

View Full Version : Computer turns photos into 3D



nAz
11-21-2006, 11:33 PM
pretty freaking cool, wonder what kinda computer power was need and if the software is available for free trials?

"Researchers of Carnegie Mellon University has managed to teach a computer to recognize and transform 2D images into 3D"...

http://www.woostercollective.com/2006/10/computer_turns_photos_into_3d.html

sack316
11-22-2006, 03:44 AM
whatever it is I want it! Nice find there

Sack

Fran Crimi
11-22-2006, 09:29 AM
I'm very familliar with 3D photography.

If you notice those pictures on that website, they're slightly blurry. It's a very good imitation of 3D but the pictures will always have to be blurry because without a viewer, they will have to be overlapped to give the 3D effect.

In order to view true 3D, you need to view two transparencies at the same time, seen through a special viewer at eye width apart. The transparencies have to have been taken by a 3D camera which takes two shots at the same time of the same object at eye-width apart.

Fran

heater451
11-22-2006, 04:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>. . .In order to view true 3D, you need to view two transparencies at the same time, seen through a special viewer at eye width apart. The transparencies have to have been taken by a 3D camera which takes two shots at the same time of the same object at eye-width apart.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>When I think about 3D photos, I think about how you describe it, with the necessity of two fields of view (I'm guessing with that). The illusion that the picture a picture is stretching towards me is what I consider 3D. Also, I'm judging by the old, red/blue lens glasses--I have never viewed full-color 3D, like the Jaws or Friday the 13th movie sequels.

In the case of the computer-generated stuff, it would seem to me that, if you could teach a computer to read the horizon line, deduce the correct vanishing points, to pull the right perspective, then a 3D "world" can be built up.

The fuzziness might also be a video-compression issue as well. . . .

Fran Crimi
11-22-2006, 05:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> When I think about 3D photos, I think about how you describe it, with the necessity of two fields of view (I'm guessing with that). The illusion that the picture a picture is stretching towards me is what I consider 3D. Also, I'm judging by the old, red/blue lens glasses--I have never viewed full-color 3D, like the Jaws or Friday the 13th movie sequels.

In the case of the computer-generated stuff, it would seem to me that, if you could teach a computer to read the horizon line, deduce the correct vanishing points, to pull the right perspective, then a 3D "world" can be built up.

The fuzziness might also be a video-compression issue as well. . . .



<hr /></blockquote>

Also, you have to remember that there are 3D stills and 3D movies. The computer generated images on that website were not quite movies but not quite stills, either. There was motion there. Maybe it was an effort to accentuate the depth issue but I think the motion part was necessary to create the 3D effect in that case.

Probably most of my childhood has been recorded by my dad on 3D slides. When you look at them through an authentic 3D viewer, there's no doubt about it; they're stills, but you feel like you could see around corners. The thing that really jumps out at you, though, is the clarity of the shot. There's no fuzziness because each eye is viewing a single, separate transparency. It's not anything like the colored glasses that you get in the movie theaters, although those work just fine for moving images.

Fran