Pretty damn cool
 

I still have a copy of "Splash" the program that got "Flash" started
before Macromedia bought it, and I've upgraded to each of the first 5
versions of Flash.

Now, as you all know it has become far more than just a way to make graphics
more interesting on a website, has it's own scripting language and is often
the real core of a site instead of HTML. On my slow dial-up I've come to
dislike Flash as pageweight is usually way too heavy for me.


But, this is way cool ... imho ... I may have to upgrade to latest version
and study for weeks to learn how this was done

http://www.flytyingclips.com/chung.html

Pretty damn cool
 

On Jan 10, 4:50*pm, "Larry L" wrote:
But, this is way cool ... imho ... I may have to upgrade to latest version
and study for weeks to learn how this was done

That *is* cool. I could study for weeks, & I still wouldn't
understand it.

Joe F.

Pretty damn cool
 

On Jan 10, 2:50 pm, "Larry L" wrote:

But, this is way cool ... imho ... I may have to upgrade to latest version
and study for weeks to learn how this was done

http://www.flytyingclips.com/chung.html

Pretty nifty...I counted about 10 discrete increments for a 90 degree
rotation, so it looks like they just took 40 stills of the fly and
then just switch still images based on mouse location. Probably pretty
easy...once you get your stills all lined up.

Jon.

Pretty damn cool
 

On Jan 10, 11:44 pm, wrote:
On Jan 10, 2:50 pm, "Larry L" wrote:

But, this is way cool ... imho ... I may have to upgrade to latest version
and study for weeks to learn how this was done

http://www.flytyingclips.com/chung.html

Pretty nifty...I counted about 10 discrete increments for a 90 degree
rotation, so it looks like they just took 40 stills of the fly and
then just switch still images based on mouse location. Probably pretty
easy...once you get your stills all lined up.

Jon.

The guy who did this posted about it on one of the fly-dressing
boards. It involved taking a lot of still images. I can´t remember how
the rest was done, may be as you say a function of mouse location.

MC

Pretty damn cool
 

On Jan 10, 2:50 pm, "Larry L" wrote:
http://www.flytyingclips.com/chung.html

That is very cool indeed.
I did 3D programming (in Ope-Inventor and OpenGL on SGI boxes)
for several years. I'm guessing, but I assume there is some
3D interpolation going on there. A half a dozen or more photographs,
taken at regular 360' intervals, are fed into a program that fills
in the blanks, much the same way 3D tomography is done.

I've seen rotations of electron and confocal microscope images
put together in a spin like that, where software takes out blurriness
due to depth of field, and splices it all together so it looks like
a continuous view. I'd like to know what flash software did that.

Pretty damn cool
 

On Jan 10, 4:04 pm, salmobytes wrote:
On Jan 10, 2:50 pm, "Larry L" wrote:
http://www.flytyingclips.com/chung.html

That is very cool indeed.

I thought about this some more. It doesn't have anything to do
with 3D--you can only spin the image in one axis.
I'll bet this is 2D frame-to-frame pixel morphing.
The user takes 4-8 still photos in a regular axis rotation.
Then something vaguely like Xmorph interpolates a bunch
of new frames between the original image points. How that
happens in semi-realtime is a mystery. This is no giant
animated gif. That would take too long to download.
There are a few image editing groups on usenet.
Maybe someone out there really knows.

Pretty damn cool
 

salmobytes wrote:
On Jan 10, 4:04 pm, salmobytes wrote:

On Jan 10, 2:50 pm, "Larry L" wrote:
http://www.flytyingclips.com/chung.html

That is very cool indeed.


I thought about this some more. It doesn't have anything to do
with 3D--you can only spin the image in one axis.
I'll bet this is 2D frame-to-frame pixel morphing.
The user takes 4-8 still photos in a regular axis rotation.
Then something vaguely like Xmorph interpolates a bunch
of new frames between the original image points. How that
happens in semi-realtime is a mystery. This is no giant
animated gif. That would take too long to download.
There are a few image editing groups on usenet.
Maybe someone out there really knows.

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.

Pretty damn cool
 

It's just a series of bout 40 photos. What's the big deal?


Yes, but I doubt anybody took 40 photos.
I think they took fewer exposures, and then used software to
interpolate the intermediate frames.

Pretty damn cool
 

salmobytes wrote:
It's just a series of bout 40 photos. What's the big deal?



Yes, but I doubt anybody took 40 photos.

Why not? It wouldn't be hard to do with a still camera, especially one
that shoots sequences.

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

Pretty damn cool
 

"salmobytes" wrote in message
...

It's just a series of bout 40 photos. What's the big deal?


Yes, but I doubt anybody took 40 photos.
I think they took fewer exposures, and then used software to
interpolate the intermediate frames.

Way out of my depth, but I'm curious. Is there anything visible which tends
to support one theory or the other? Or are we dealing with speculation
based on considerations other than what appears on the screen?

Wolfgang

Pretty damn cool
 

On Jan 11, 9:13 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"salmobytes" wrote in message


We're dealing with speculation based on what appears on the screen.
Plus.....coding experience. 12 years now, since bs in cs.

Pretty damn cool
 

On Jan 11, 5:23 pm, salmobytes wrote:
On Jan 11, 9:13 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:

"salmobytes" wrote in message

We're dealing with speculation based on what appears on the screen.
Plus.....coding experience. 12 years now, since bs in cs.

If you do a search on http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zeroforum?id=68
you will find the post somewhere where the guy described how he did
it, and that is was time-consuming to do. There was a short thread on
it. Some time around the beginning of last year I seem to recall.

MC

Pretty damn cool
 

"salmobytes" wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 9:13 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"salmobytes" wrote in message


We're dealing with speculation based on what appears on the screen.
Plus.....coding experience. 12 years now, since bs in cs.

Again, not my area of expertise. What appears on the screen that suggests
it was done other than by a simple succession of photographs?

Wolfgang

Pretty damn cool
 

salmobytes wrote:
On Jan 11, 9:13 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:

"salmobytes" wrote in message



We're dealing with speculation based on what appears on the screen.
Plus.....coding experience. 12 years now, since bs in cs.

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

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

Pretty damn cool
 

On Jan 11, 10:14 am, rw wrote:
salmobytes wrote:
On Jan 11, 9:13 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:

"salmobytes" wrote in message

We're dealing with speculation based on what appears on the screen.
Plus.....coding experience. 12 years now, since bs in cs.

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

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

A phd in cs? No wonder you're so odd! :-)


I shoot lots of fly photos. It's my hobby.
But the idea of shooting 40 frames is daunting. It would be difficult
to spin the vise in 40 even increments.

Even in the original author did do that (40 exposures) I'm thinking
he didn't have to. Software does exist, that would make it reasonable
to shoot say 8-12 exposures, and then interpolate the rest.

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.

From now until the monitor still shines bright, I will click the
keyboard
no more forever (about this). It's time to tie some flies. Or shoot
some photos (and not 40 damnit).

Pretty damn cool
 

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?

RE "click the keyboard no more forever"
Well, I never said I wasn't.....

Pretty damn cool
 

"salmobytes" wrote


Yes, but I doubt anybody took 40 photos.
I think they took fewer exposures, and then used software to
interpolate the intermediate frames.


I went back and looked again and I think it is "just" a lot of still photos

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.

Camera mounted on tripod, fly mounted on rotating holder, unimaginable
patience ... all it would take G

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.



The site has a "contact us" link .... ask em !! In my experience, people
love to talk about what they have done so you will please them asking.

Pretty damn cool
 

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.

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

Pretty damn cool
 

Larry L wrote:
"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.




The site has a "contact us" link .... ask em !! In my experience, people
love to talk about what they have done so you will please them asking.



If you have some device to turn the base automatically, and if you have
a camera that takes sequences, it should be a piece of cake.

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

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