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

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.

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.

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

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.

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