Pretty damn cool
 

rw wrote:
salmobytes wrote:

On Jan 11, 10:14 am, rw wrote:


Well I have a PhD in CS, so there! :-)


Does that mean you're all theory and no code?


I've coded than you can even imagine, but it's be awhile.


"been" awhile. I'm a sucky typist.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Pretty damn cool
 

"salmobytes" wrote


Hmmm. I'd love to have a few 360' fly-image rotations on my own site.
But I wouldn't even consider 40 exposures per fly. The photoshop
touchup work alone would drive me nuts.
But if I could do 8 such frames, and click a mouse to do the rest,
then I'd do it to it.



It occurs to me that the 'function' is to let the viewer see all the
important aspects and views of the fly.

That function could be well served with 8 shots ... either presented as
separate stills or in a Flash 'movie' with mouse position controlling the
view shown.

This 'form' of presentation wouldn't be as eye-catchingly cool but it would
be far better than the standard fly photo and give admirers the visual
information they need to appreciate and duplicate a pattern.

Just a thought from

Larry L
( a "Form Follows Function" kinda guy )

Pretty damn cool
 

On Jan 11, 10:35 am, "Larry L" wrote:

Using a trackball type "mouse" and being as careful as I can I get distinct
jumps and can not, ever, find a postion between those jumps.

What Sandy is proposing would still have jumps, although why stop at
40 pics if all you have to do is click a mouse? ;-)

If you look at some of the other flies, there are pretty big exposure
jumps between some successive images, as well as focusing changes.
That wouldn't happen with interpolation.

E.g, choose "Peter Koga", "Steelhead 1", and make the fly face
directly away from you. Then rotate it counter clockwise (as viewed
from above) and watch the next 4-5 images.

Jon.

Pretty damn cool
 

On Jan 11, 12:20 pm, wrote:

Ok, you must be right about how it *was* done.
......makes sents after all :-)

Pretty damn cool
 

salmobytes wrote:
On Jan 11, 12:20 pm, wrote:

Ok, you must be right about how it *was* done.
.....makes sents after all :-)

I think this may be the way he did it.

http://www.yofla.com/flash/3d-rotate/



--


Don`t Worry, Be Happy

Sandy
--

E-Mail:-
Website:- http://www.ftscotland.co.uk
Looking for a webhost? Try http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=2966019
Fishing Wild at http://www.wild-fishing-scotland.co.uk/

Pretty damn cool
 

On Jan 11, 12:53 pm, "Sandy Birrell" wrote:
salmobytes wrote:
On Jan 11, 12:20 pm, wrote:

Ok, you must be right about how it *was* done.
.....makes sents after all :-)

I think this may be the way he did it.

http://www.yofla.com/flash/3d-rotate/

--

Don`t Worry, Be Happy

Sandy
--

E-Mail:-
Website:- http://www.ftscotland.co.uk
Looking for a webhost? Tryhttp://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=2966019
Fishing Wild athttp://www.wild-fishing-scotland.co.uk/

Ah ha!
Now that makes cents.

Pretty damn cool
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
salmobytes wrote:
It's just a series of bout 40 photos. What's the big deal?

Its an imaginative way to show the fly, but I don't see any fancy
graphics.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

The most interesting part to me is the control of rotation by the mouse,
which makes it more than a simple animation with 40 photos. Now if I could
have true 3D, being able to look at the fly from any angle (i.e. top and
bottom also) rather than simple rotation......

Gene

Pretty damn cool
 

Gene Cottrell wrote:

... Now if I could
have true 3D, being able to look at the fly from any angle (i.e. top and
bottom also) rather than simple rotation......

True. Also the lighting is pretty darn dark on some of the cooler
flies....

- JR

Pretty damn cool
 

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:09:14 -0500, "Gene Cottrell"
wrote:

"rw" wrote in message
om...
salmobytes wrote:
It's just a series of bout 40 photos. What's the big deal?

Its an imaginative way to show the fly, but I don't see any fancy
graphics.


The most interesting part to me is the control of rotation by the mouse,
which makes it more than a simple animation with 40 photos. Now if I could
have true 3D, being able to look at the fly from any angle (i.e. top and
bottom also) rather than simple rotation......

Gene

Now you're talking about a whole lot of pictures - or the use of interpolation
software previously mentioned.

fwiw, Quicktime VR supported mouse-driven 2D rotation long before it showed up
in Flash.

Years back when digital cameras first came out, I used VR to create all kinds
of 360° views of building interiors and exterior scenes. This is quite a bit
tougher to do than these fly images, because you had to rotate the camera, not
merely the target in front of a fixed camera position, and it's a rare camera
(indeed, perhaps none) that places the tripod mounting hole exactly in the
center of the "film" plane. So the first thing I had to do was make an adapter
that properly aligned the center of the film plane to the rotational center of
the tripod. Such devices can be had via mail order these days...

/daytripper

Pretty damn cool
 

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:20:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Jan 11, 10:35 am, "Larry L" wrote:

Using a trackball type "mouse" and being as careful as I can I get distinct
jumps and can not, ever, find a postion between those jumps.

What Sandy is proposing would still have jumps, although why stop at
40 pics if all you have to do is click a mouse? ;-)

If you look at some of the other flies, there are pretty big exposure
jumps between some successive images, as well as focusing changes.
That wouldn't happen with interpolation.

E.g, choose "Peter Koga", "Steelhead 1", and make the fly face
directly away from you. Then rotate it counter clockwise (as viewed
from above) and watch the next 4-5 images.

Jon.

I can't say I _know_ how the person did it, but I can say in the
rotation, the "vice" appears to raise and lower very slightly and in a
smooth, linear fashion...oh, say, about what a single thread of a
threaded system might produce/cause. If I wanted to attempt to
duplicate the "film," I'd simply tack a pointer perpendicular to a fly
holder (the tip of which is seen in the "film") on a threaded rod,
attach a compass rose type of card with points marked at whatever number
of frames I wished to expose (IOW, if I wanted 36 exposures for a roll
of 35, I'd mark every 10 degrees) and rotate to each point, take the
picture, and move to the next point. I'd guess it'd take longer to
assemble the rig than to take the pictures, but neither would seemingly
take all that long of be all _that_ complicated.

TC,
R