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

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).

"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.

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.

"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 )

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.....