Photographic future

[Photo Engineer]

There is a review of 3D systems in this months Science News magazine. Newest of all is the 3D Holotable that works much like the units in Avatar. Right now DARPA is using this technology for (of course) military evaluation.

The glassless 3D varies with angle and therefore has a very minimum viewing angle for best imaging. The type with glasses give many people headaches due to the supposedly wide viewing angle which is not really correct. If you are far off axis, the view is distorted and can cause headaches and nausea.

PE

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I think there are two trends at cinematography.
First recording 3d in to 3d
Second transforming 2d to 3d

Nobody cares about transforming 3d in to 2d anymore

PE told a technology invented by his Kodak friend , it was about creating 3D from old film , first sending first frame to one eye and second frame to other. I think this can be transcribed to computer software with green red color 3D picture.

I really want to watch Stalker in 3D and this is not space age technology. I can work on that.

Umut

 

[keithwms]

Right now DARPA is using this technology for (of course) military evaluation.

I could be wrong but to my knowledge the biggest uses of this technology are for simulators and for virtual drone cockpits. Of course, the ultimate goal is to have the warfighter completely removed from the actual battle but still engaged as realistically as possible. It's gotten quite close to the avatar level: people do get nauseated and feel real emotions in their virtual worlds.

There will be eventual spinoffs to gaming and other kinds of entertainment. But photography... nah. There are two opposing forces here to consider: reality and creative interpretation. Eventually they conflict. One reason why people appreciate art is that it takes us somewhere beyond reality... into the unfamiliar. Art makes us see things in new ways. If photography goes 3D and literal for journalism, great. But not so great for art and creativity and tickling the imagination.

 

[cliveh]

I agree with Keith on this one. 3D is just a gimmick.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

It's gotten quite close to the avatar level: people do get nauseated and feel real emotions in their virtual worlds.

People feel real emotions after reading stuff posted on the web, too.

There are two opposing forces here to consider: reality and creative interpretation. Eventually they conflict. One reason why people appreciate art is that it takes us somewhere beyond reality... into the unfamiliar. Art makes us see things in new ways. If photography goes 3D and literal for journalism, great. But not so great for art and creativity and tickling the imagination.

I've done some 3D lenticular photography in the past. The resulting photographs were good, of course depending on the subject matter.

3D, by itself, has no detrimental effect on creativity. What it made me do was select subject far more carefully, because the 3D effect is only apparent when the subjects are within a specific range. Outside of that range, the image becomes 2D. The 2D image is just as literal as the 3D image.

Since with a lenticular array each eye receives a different image, each eye can be made to view a completely separate image. Now the view of reality is reformed or distorted much further than what a 2D image could accomplish.

Therefore, 3D imagery is an advance from 2D. It's just that optically printing a lenticular 3D image is a pain...

 

[holmburgers]

Like I alluded to, I think that 3D synthesis is an interesting field. This short film, After Ghostcatching, was a perfect example of this. It created an immersive environment that would otherwise be almost impossible to experience.

Don't get me wrong, when I look at a couple of stereo-cards I start to think, 'hmm, ok, this is just like what I see every moment of everyday'. A good b&w print has nothing on that.

But the possibility of large format 3D images, and particularly without glasses, is very exciting (to me at least). I think it's easy to disregard 3D as a gimmick, but we've not seen its potential, and it requires a little optimism and little bit of imagination to imagine what fine art in 3D could do.. to you, the skeptic.

I guess what I mean is that 3D doesn't have to be only documentary, and unfortunately that's about the only precedent we have to base our judgments on.

Now, as for full-color holography, how does a statement like this not intrigue you?, "...it is possible to make a holographic image indistinguishable from the object itself."

Just like when daguerreotypes were introduced and Matthew Brady set up his studio in Washington DC to photograph goverment officials, presidents, dignitaries & other important people, imagine if someone did the same thing today with color holography? I wouldn't see that as a gimmick, but rather the most advanced and perfect imaging technique yet devised (just like daguerreotypy was in the 1840's) and used to preserve a moment in time indefinitely.

Enjoying the discussion...

 

[cliveh]

If you are presenting an image on a 2D surface, why try and show it in 3D? If I look at a painting or photograph I expect it to be in 2D. If I want 3D, I look at sculpture. The nearest I have got to appreciating 3D on a 2D image is the thickness of paint on a Van Gogh.

 

[jakyamuni]

Two answers here Ed!

As for making it yourself, the actual formulas and methods are very secret! There are only about 100 Photo Engineers left in the entire world. in 100 years, who will be around to teach it? Right now, out of the total membership of APUG, only about 20 are interested or are willing to act as you say may take place. So, the knowledge may be lost.

PE

I have over 3000 pages of formula and photographic text and trade books from the 19th and early 20th centuries that have almost every kind of photo formula imaginable... the hard part will be translating these (since chemical names and measures have changed remarkably in that time), verifying them, and making them work. There's no reason whatsoever that these be lost... and basic chemistry does not become obsolete.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have over 3000 pages of formula and photographic text and trade books from the 19th and early 20th centuries that have almost every kind of photo formula imaginable... the hard part will be translating these (since chemical names and measures have changed remarkably in that time), verifying them, and making them work. There's no reason whatsoever that these be lost... and basic chemistry does not become obsolete.

Please look at my posts #42 and #46 here. The formulas you have are quite old and the authors have left out huge amounts of critical information for one reason or another. Many just have errors in them as is human nature. The Brovira formulas in Glafkides are filled with transcription errors and the originals in the BIOS and FIAT reports are very vague and misleading.

So, think what you will, but you are due for a rude surprise with most of those formulas of yours.

PE

 

[jakyamuni]

I don't have the Brovia formulas, or the FIAT report... but the idea is to transcribe and see what's missing, or different, in each formula for the same thing. A good number of the books I have are explicitly "how-to" books, and a fair number are from various Kodak departments. I'm not looking for Kodachrome, or high-speed panchromatic rollfilm, or anything like that (although homebrew 4489 would be fun)... just sound, industry-independent image-capture abilities. I figure, as a scientist, it's a better starting point than anything else, even with the foibles of 19th century science.

They also include several thousand developer, reducer, intensifier, and all kinds of nonsilver and alternative processes, and most of those are very close to the "modern" standards. So I'm not that worried about it. Not yet.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Best wishes to you then.

Remember, you never miss something until it is gone!

PE

 

[dwross]

I don't have the Brovia formulas, or the FIAT report... but the idea is to transcribe and see what's missing, or different, in each formula for the same thing. A good number of the books I have are explicitly "how-to" books, and a fair number are from various Kodak departments. I'm not looking for Kodachrome, or high-speed panchromatic rollfilm, or anything like that (although homebrew 4489 would be fun)... just sound, industry-independent image-capture abilities. I figure, as a scientist, it's a better starting point than anything else, even with the foibles of 19th century science.

They also include several thousand developer, reducer, intensifier, and all kinds of nonsilver and alternative processes, and most of those are very close to the "modern" standards. So I'm not that worried about it. Not yet.

Hi jakyamuni,

Fantastic news about your treasure trove of old recipes! Even better is to meet another optimistic practitioner of the the scientific method. The Venn Diagram approach to examining the old darlings is great fun (and, of course, probably more to the point -- very productive.) I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Hope you share!

d

 

[keithwms]

Now, as for full-color holography, how does a statement like this not intrigue you?, "...it is possible to make a holographic image indistinguishable from the object itself."

Artistically? Actually, no - it doesn't interest me in the least. I actually like the 2D aspect of photography. To me, putting a photograph on paper is like creative writing. The act of translating the 3D reality into the piece of art interests me.... the subject has to go through the eyes and thoughts and the hands of the photographer. I am usually more interested in those thoughts and what the photographer has to say than the literal subject itself. I guess it's a good thing I'm not a journalist

 

[holmburgers]

I see what you mean keith.

I just think that given a new tool, an artist will emerge to make a noble use of it. And the tool itself is fascinating to me; from the standpoint of an invention, from a technological achievement and from the perspective of mimicking reality more and more perfectly.

I think you're right though... we should be thinking of it first as a documentary device (I'm specifically referring to color holography at this point). Imagine a restaurant with color holographs of all their menu items, or life-like replicas of priceless works of art available to anyone, and of course the aforementioned portrait... and heck, just imagine what it might do to the nudey magazine industry!.... ok, scratch that last thought...

One last note, holography doesn't suffer from the lame '2D planes stacked in a 3D environment' effect that you get from stereoscopic photography as we all well know. As you move your head, you see around the sides of objects and can follow contours in a natural way.

 

[keithwms]

I just think that given a new tool, an artist will emerge to make a noble use of it.

Yes, I definitely agree with that! New artists and new tools of art are constantly emerging. It's refreshing to see what new minds will think.

Let me commodify the conversation for a minute. The most valuable art today is.... any one of a number of ~300 year old paintings. Even Damian Hirst's diamond skull doesn't come close!

I think the obvious lesson is that there are all manner of expensive and intricate tools and processes; yet relatively simple tools and techniques have yielded art of extraordinary value.

 

[keithwms]

... and heck, just imagine what it might do to the nudey magazine industry!.... ok, scratch that last thought...

I suspect that scratch-n-sniff technology would take the porn industry much further

 

[holmburgers]

lol.... that's something I hadn't considered!

 

[lxdude]

Sounds like those old "3-D" images from when I was a kid, which were called lenticular or prismatic images. They had straight parallel ridges. They gave either a 3-D effect or part or all of the image would change when viewing angle changed.
The 3-D images were more blurry than the type that changed. They were sometimes prizes in Crackerjack boxes. The cover picture of one of the Rolling Stones' albums was lenticular for a 3-D effect. I remember an issue of some magazine had one on the cover. I'm not positive, but I think there were some special edition trading cards that used them, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_printing

 

[holmburgers]

I see so many lenticular prints of Jesus at antique malls... and every once in a while a 'secular' image. I've got one of a "lovely" vase of flowers hanging in my room, and I was this close to buying one of a small white dog...

Some guy from China is trying to sell some off some of the cameras that were used to make these types of images; he posted some information on (there was a url link here which no longer exists). They have an automatically shifting front lens standard and shoot 8x10". If I had a lot of disposable income....

The difference between lenticular prints, which is kind of a misnomer because they all use "lenticles" (lenses), and the more modern version is that lenticular prints only work in one axis, whereas the fly's eye array or prismatic(?) images work in any direction.

I just learned about a new 3D method last night while leafing through an old book. Edwin Land's Vectorgraph.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

I see so many lenticular prints of Jesus at antique malls...

Antique lenticular prints of Jesus??? Were they also selling any Rembrandts? Of Elvis on black velvet? Minty condition? I know those are hot!

Autostereograms have the problem that the eyes need to defocus, and aren't reliably viewable by everyone. 3D technology has been with us for a rather long while, and the only thing that's held it back has been what's plagued photography from the start: composition.

We really haven't had any good art photography done with 3D. Is there a 3D movie where you'd say, "Gee, the 2D version was good, but you've just got to see it in 3D! It just falls flat without the depth." Most of the time, the result is, "Oh, what garbage did they make now?"

There are 3D pictures from the Civil War and WWI. But after that, 3D is out of the picture, so to speak. When I've seen color pictures from 1900, I think to myself, "Oooh, how real!" When I see stereo pictures, there's another added dimension of reality. But really, we've simply dropped everything when it comes down to seriously advancing the camera. Really, where is all the stereo technology? We have amazing advances in exposure and focus, but nothing for stereo.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have a box of stereo Autochromes (undated) and remember the upsurge of 3D in the '50s. The 3 Stooges shot some stereo to get the pie in the eye effect for the audience!

PE

 

[octofish]

We really haven't had any good art photography done with 3D. Is there a 3D movie where you'd say, "Gee, the 2D version was good, but you've just got to see it in 3D! It just falls flat without the depth." Most of the time, the result is, "Oh, what garbage did they make now?"

Check out Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams from earlier this year. It's a documentary filmed in 3d. It floored me and I was convinced 3d cinema was a gimmicky waste of time as I was sitting down in the theatre.

He uses the quirks of the 3d-fication of 2d images he's used in parts to add to the idiosyncrasy and off-centredness that runs through most of his stuff. As an asset. Rather than trying to pretend it's not there. And the parts that are in true 3d are stunning. He's actually using it in a creative way rather than as eye candy (although it is that too). He's composing in 3 dimensions. It's a fairly specialised subject matter that particularly lends itself to the medium, but it shows it's possible to use it well. Worth checking out. It's always possible to get a bergman flick out on dvd (VHS... no, betamax... sorry!!) to try wash the filth off after

3d televisions are stupid though. That I stand by. People stopped buying 1000" plasma screens so they had to think of some other crap to move units. But then I think one of the things in your house is enough, most likely even too much, so what do I know .

On a related note - I remember a friend asking me in about '02 as a "tech person" whether he should get a mobile phone with a camera in it. I said, "no, don't bother. It's just a gimmick." Now people are fighting revolutions with the things...

-8fish

 

[Downingfan]

I had the pleasure of apprenticing with a fine art holographer for 7 years in the 1980's- and I'm still peripherally involved (the holography world is very small). It was his incredible grasp of the limitations of the medium that pushed him to create images that could only exist in a hologram. The artistic imagery and animation he achieved- and technical experience he needed to master- actually aided the scientific progress of the medium. Yes, there are computer generated full color holograms that are now being produced. There was a rare exhibit of a range of art holography in Beacon, NY- that closed just last month- that had almost all forms of holograms including several examples of the digital ones. It will be interesting to see how digital holograms will evolve. Attempting to imagine what the viewer sees in 3D is far more complex than creating 2D images with contraptions that are just as 2D as the final product. Holography is a much more complex process, thus narrowing the number of people who would even attempt the feat from the technical aspect alone. For that reason- and others- I don't believe that you can expect the same interest from photographers of the possibilities. I couldn't have been closer to the holographic process/progress yet as much as I was amazed by it, and am still, I can't get my head around producing images that are worth the effort- from my photographic perspective. Additionally, you can't really capture a "moment" in a hologram. Even the digital process seems to allow only for imagery that can be created in an extremely aseptic studio setting. The round holograms are the closest to something accessibly viewed but they are not true holograms; they are frames of movie film translated optically through the holographic process into vertical "slits" of which your eye sees more than one, thus creating the illusion of dimension. Photography in its infancy was accessible to many people, from the practitioners to the viewers. Holography is now 50 years old and has a long way to go before it will make a dent in exploring its possibilities and will be challenged to get past the gimmick perception of the medium. I believe that is why other processes will lead to the cutting-edge 3D world to which you refer- processes that haven't even been explored yet.

 

[Erik Petersson]

Antique lenticular prints of Jesus??? Were they also selling any Rembrandts? Of Elvis on black velvet? Minty condition? I know those are hot!

Autostereograms have the problem that the eyes need to defocus, and aren't reliably viewable by everyone. 3D technology has been with us for a rather long while, and the only thing that's held it back has been what's plagued photography from the start: composition.

We really haven't had any good art photography done with 3D. Is there a 3D movie where you'd say, "Gee, the 2D version was good, but you've just got to see it in 3D! It just falls flat without the depth." Most of the time, the result is, "Oh, what garbage did they make now?"

There are 3D pictures from the Civil War and WWI. But after that, 3D is out of the picture, so to speak. When I've seen color pictures from 1900, I think to myself, "Oooh, how real!" When I see stereo pictures, there's another added dimension of reality. But really, we've simply dropped everything when it comes down to seriously advancing the camera. Really, where is all the stereo technology? We have amazing advances in exposure and focus, but nothing for stereo.

I liked "Pina" by Wim Wenders. It is a German documentary about a dance choreographer, Pina Bausch. Or how should I put it. The filming started as a documentary, but then Pina died and the film is about how a group of dancers remember her. Much of this is expressed through dance, not words. Very beautiful and good use of 3D. No car chases, no space ships, no storyline. Just beauty.

And, I should add, I liked the 3D effects in Avatar, although the movie is rather silly.

 

[Erik Petersson]

What regards the future, I happen to have overheard that a Russian oligarch (won't write his name) will establish the "Institute of Pre-digital Photography", as he wishes to call it. It will be joint venture with one of the Saudi princes and a mega-rich Chinese businessman who is also an art dealer. They plan to hire staff in St Petersburg and Shanghai, about 50 researchers I think, and film coating lines in both cities. Lots of guest researchers will be welcome. There will be grants and scholarships to other manufacturers and to practitioners in the range from 5000 to 5 million USD.

Ooops I forgot, I was not supposed to say anything yet. I hope they don't change their minds now!