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.

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

"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

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.

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).