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.

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.

You're trying too hard. Its simply a matter of taking alot of shots, at
least 36 for this fly at regular angles. If I was coding it, I'd
preload all the images, create a double linked list(or similar
structure) with one element per picture, and then move left or right on
the list based on the left or right movement of the mouse. You could
code it in Javascript if you really wanted, but flash makes it much
more compact. Morphing images and creating new frames would be way too
heavy for most internet connections, and you'd never get such a clear
view unless the software was incredibly advanced.


--
Mike Ridolfino
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Ridolfino's Profile: http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulleti...php?userid=791
View this thread: http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulleti...ad.php?t=13588


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Mike Ridolfino wrote:
You're trying too hard. Its simply a matter of taking alot of shots, at
least 36 for this fly at regular angles.

Maybe.
The following is similar. But it uses a ray-traced cartoon
as a starting point. I'm going to have to learn
about ActionScripting and animations. This looks too much
fun.

http://72.21.54.82/kozykorner/flash-lego3d

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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