Is there a secret problem with depth maps?

It sounds like a great idea to utilize a depth map to extract information and control the depth depicted in an image or series of images. It sounds great for converting a 2D image into a 3D image. It sounds like a great tool for plenoptic cameras to interpolate the data into imagery with depth. Alpha channels are great to use for transparency mapping – so a depth map should be equally useful, shouldn’t it?

Take a look at this depth map:

This is a depth map created from a plenoptic camera shot of a bunch of ice bits. It is a grayscale image with 256 shades of gray to depict the parts of the ice that are closer to the camera and the parts of the ice that are farther away from the camera. This information is used to adjust the depth of those bits that are closer and farther away by stretching or compressing pixels.

Now check out a rocking animation that uses motion parallax to depict the depth (items closer to you appear to move differently than items that are farther away).

Right away you can notice a few errors in the depth map, and for complex images this is typical and can be edited and “corrected”. But there is something else. Take a close look at the parts of the image where the depth map is seemingly correct. Sure, you can see the depth but does it really look like ice? If you are like me, the answer is no. Ice reflects and scatters light in a way that is unique for each perspective. Indeed, there IS binocular rivalry where one eye sees light reflection and distortion that is not present in the other eye’s perspective. This disparity tells us something about the texture and makeup of what we are looking at. Stretching or compressing pixels eliminates this information and only provides depth cues relating to the spatial position of things. For most people, I suspect it is reasonable to assume that this creates a perception conflict in their brains. There is something perceptually wrong with the image above. It does not look like ice because the light coming off of the two perspectives looks the same. A depth map does not provide information regarding binocular rivalry and creates errors as a result. Errors that can’t be fixed. Herein you see the flaw in using a depth map. It throws away all of the binocular rivalry information. In other words, it throws away the information between perspectives that is different.

In my opinion, depth maps take the life out of an image. It removes important texture information which, I believe, is gleaned from how light shifts and changes and appears and disappears as you alter perspective.

This is the secret fundamental flaw with depth maps. Now you can subjectively look at the image above and deem it to be cool and otherwise amazing. That is all good and well, but the truth is that, compared with looking at the real ice, it is fundamentally lacking and does not depict what is seen when you look at the ice in real life.

So, people ask themselves if this is important and some will say yes and some will say no. And there are many examples where you could argue both points of view. I don’t have an argument with that. My position is only to point out that this flaw exists and it should not be ignored.

Amped 360: Featured Attraction At Boston Tattoo Convention

COME SEE THE 50 CAMERA AMPED360 ARRAY! 

The standard for tattoo imagery is about to change and Almont Green is out to change it. Coming to the Boston Tattoo Convention, rotational imagery display systems and do it yourself training will be part of a huge AMPED3D exhibit at the show. A fifty camera AMPED 360 array will be set up to capture tattoo images for rotation in addition to information on how rotational images can be created using a single camera and uploaded to the AMPED360ink.com website for display on Facebook and easily embedded within websites. Giant hologram type AMPED3D images will also be on display at the show and available for purchase.  “Right now galleries across the globe are still using photo albums to display 2-dimensional images of their 3 dimensional artwork. With 3D and 360 degree rotational imagery now available, it’s a natural next step in the evolution of tattoo imagery to use smartphones, tablets and display systems to take portfolios to the next level. “– Almont Green, Amped360ink.com

Click and drag to rotate (or swipe with finger) to see the effect! 

One innovative tattoo business, “Visions Tattoo & Piercing” of Medway, MA already understands the importance of this concept and will be displaying their work on a custom designed rotational monitor system at their booth. “We want both new and existing customers to be able to see our work the way it was meant to be viewed.”- Canman, Visions Owner & Artist

During the show rotational image display systems, training programs and rotational image web hosting options will be available for purchase.  Amazing hologram like AMPED 3D images will also be on display at the event and available for sale at special pricing.

 

CONTACT ALMONT GREEN STUDIOS at 508-533-0333

http://amped360ink.com

Like us on Facebook

Amped 3D images are images you can see into. Amped3D photography, created by the artist Almont Green, is accomplished using a unique combination of complex camera hardware, sophisticated proprietary software, materials and painstaking manufacturing techniques. Digital images are precision aligned, processed, and printed with a modified high-resolution printer with each perspective occupying a vertical strip 1/2000th of an inch wide. An amazing, world’s highest resolution 30″x30″ human skull image that comes right out of the frame will be on display and available for purchase.

The result of years of work, Almont Green developed AMPED 3D photography with the help of neuroscientists, brain research centers, vision experts and leading technologists. The images simply must be seen in person to be believed!

I am presenting a paper at SPIE January 25, 2011 at 5:30 PM Paper 7863-49

SPIE (the International Society for Optical Engineering)  See:
http://spie.org/x16218.xml is holding a conference on 3D imaging from Jan. 23 – 27 in San Francisco, CA. My paper and presentation: “Human perception considerations for 3D content creation” is about the problem of perception conflicts as they relate to 3D imagery and what to do about them.

I first started thinking about this when I saw an old lenticular photograph of Queen Elizabeth. The photograph could be viewed with stereopsis but the Queen looked like she was dead. Watching the movie Beowulf, while not in 3D, also gave me the creeps as the characters had a dead aspect to them. I noticed some 3D lenticular photographs of people presented with a doll-like character. I then started to notice things in 3D movies that didn’t seem right. When details disappeared into blackness or got blown out to white I noticed an uneasy feeling while looking at that part of the 3D presentation.

Indeed, every time something was presented in 3D that was atypical or not possible to see in the real world, I could detect a feeling of conflict present at some level in my subconsious and I started to manifest a sensitivity to it with regards to recognizing when it was happening.

All of these observations got me thinking about the various mechanisims that we use to see and interpret depth, space and texture. Certainly vergence is the primary mechanism, but as I became more aware of supporting clues like accommodation, motion, luminance dynamic range, binocular rivalry, field of view and so on, I came to a realization.  I realized that when non-vergence depth clues weren’t complementary that those elements or perceptions in conflict required suppression to continue viewing without some sort of physical effect occurring (typically unpleasant such as headache, nausea, etc.).

My paper is a start to the investigation of the importance of supporting perception cues as it relates to stereovision.

*Vergence is the simultaneous movement of both eyes in opposite directions to obtain fixation and the ability to see depth.

*Accommodation is the automatic adjustment in the focal length of the lens of the eye to permit retinal focus of images of objects at varying distances. It is achieved through the action of the ciliary muscles that change the shape of the lens of the eye.

Perspective Interpolation – Specularity and Refraction Problems

So, how about converting 2D to 3D or converting two perspective 3D into multi-perspective autostereoscopic… Technology certainly should easily make that possible, right?

The answer is a bit complicated. Because for some images it is quite possible to achieve excellent results. Unfortunately, for many images and scenes it truly is impossible to create accurate 3D from 2D and/or interpolate additional perspectives for autostereoscopic displays.

Case in point? Look at the animation below:

In the background painting there are tiny bits of highly reflective particles embedded in oil paint. These dots of light reflect bright points of light depending upon the perspective. They “come on” quickly as you change perspective because of the paint occlusion where you see them in one eye but not the other. Any program that interpolates views would not know what to do with a picture like this. Morph the dots of light? In real life, they don’t morph, they pop on with the light brightening as the perspective angle changes.

Now, take a close look at the glass gems. Notice how their specularity is influenced by the perspective position relative to the background?  Notice the refraction as you see the background through the transparent glass. Unless you modeled the gems in a 3D program and rendered them, there would be no way to interpolate with a pixel warping program what is going on with the look and texture of these gems as they change perspective.

What happens typically with a conversion is an abysmal mess for items with specularity and refraction. It looks 3D for sure – but in no way is representative of reality. And this is the conundrum. There is no uniformity or consistency with regards to 2D to 3D conversions or 2 perspective to multi perspective conversions. It is completely content based and the results are dependent upon the subject matter.

Binocular disparity and as this example demonstrates, binocular rivalry where one perspective contains elements not visible in the other perspective create monumental problems for conversion.

The solution? Shoot multiple perspectives. And this is the path that I have been forced to take to create consistent and uniform results. Indeed, fewer than 10 perspectives does not yield quality, uniform results in my humble opinion. Can fewer than 10 perspectives work? The answer is yes if what you are photographing has no specularity or refraction properties and the texture is smooth and uniform. But as an artist, I find that restriction way to limiting and live in a world that consists mostly of refractive material (water) and glass and gems and metals. Indeed, just look around and the world is filled with specular and refractive content.

Even portraits pose a problem because unless the person has extremely dry eyes, they glisten as the moisture that coats the eye creates specularity and refraction. Of course, if you don’t have a close up or reduce the resolution then it isn’t that noticeable. But here again, as an artist I find that too limiting.

I do not understand the willingness of people to ignore these problems. While it is true that in many cases specularity and refraction are subtle and nuanced. But given that 3D mimics the way we see real life, shouldn’t 3D be subtle and nuanced? Perhaps the gross over emphasized poke you in the eye effects are doing the potential of 3D a disservice?

That’s my view. But what do I know?

The mediocrity of most 3D lenticular prints is so realistic that it leaps off the image and completely ruins your day!

What does a person say when they are presented with a 3D image where the only redeeming quality of the image is that it is in 3D? I find it disheartening to see so much BAD 3D content. Indeed, my own work could stand improvement – but when I look at what is out there I really cringe.

I think this is a big part of the problem with the acceptance of 3D imagery. There just isn’t a high level of quality. So many are focused on the effect of 3D that they completely ignore things like good image composition, lighting for 3D, telling a story within the photograph and just creating something that is compelling to look at and study.

A good 2D photograph does not a good 3D photograph make!  With a 2D photograph you use lighting and perspective to create a sense of depth and drama. It is the abstraction that stirs the interpretation of the image. Everything about a regular photograph (2D) is processed in the brain through interpretation. If emotion is evoked from looking at a 2D photograph it is through the process of drawing upon what we have seen before and making comparisons of a sort. We make the connection through interpretation and referencing it to other things we have seen.

This dynamic falls apart with 3D imagery. For most 3D images, you notice the “gimmick” of 3D. “Look! Something is sticking out of the picture!”, “Wow, isn’t that amazing!”, etc. But like all gimmicks, they get old fast. When people try to create a 3D image using the same process as that for 2D images a problem surfaces. When we see with stereopsis (3D) we are engaging a part of human perception that relates to seeing things that are real and have a sense of occupying space. Our brain doesn’t try to interpret, but rather seeks to first experience and evaluate what we are seeing. Our brain asks: Is this image real? And then it starts a process to determine the realness which for most 3D imagery takes about a second. So, the first impression is negative (not real) and the level of interest typically fades in a dramatic fashion. “You’ve seen one 3D image, you’ve seen them all”. 

This process doesn’t exist for 2D imagery as there is no expectation that it could be real.

So, two solutions exist to the above problem. Option one would be to make every effort to have the 3D photograph appear as real and accurate as possible. Option two would be to find a way to make it obvious that the image isn’t real and have the brain process the image as referential just as it does with a 2D image.

Both options are extraordinarly difficult to achieve. And herein lies the artistic challenge of 3D imagery. My approach, to date, has been option one because I believe that until one throughly understands how to perfect option one — that option two will be significatly more difficult. I am experimenting with all aspects of multi perspective photography with the goal of achieving a type of viewing engagement that is perceived with “realness”.

Next up for blogging?  How to achieve “realness” with 3D photography.

How 3D Imagery Links Einstein, Perception, Brain Function, Emotion and More

My study of autostereoscopic imagery , like the layers of an onion, continue to reveal more and more – like Einstein’s theory of relativity. The surprising connection between 3D imagery and space/time theory has captured my imagination. The single biggest difference between a “regular” photograph and an autostereoscopic photograph is the depiction of the space between things. That depiction exists in an autostereoscopic photograph and doesn’t exist in a regular photograph.

When we see and perceive space, we are also experiencing time. Photons of light move through time as they move through space. The time component of stereopsis vision was important for our ancestors – to interpret the speed of the danger moving towards them to determine a fight or flight response, as one example.

But it goes much deeper than that. Seeing the space between things is a component of perception that gives meaning to where we exist and our relationship to the world and our ability to interpret the concept of time. Perhaps, that explains the flood of emotion those that gained stereopsis vision later in life all have reported. The ability to more directly experience the space/time component of our existance sounds pretty compelling to me as something to get emotional about.

Can the real space/time that exists in reality be captured in an autostereoscopic photograph? Of course not. And I don’t think it has to, since our eyes don’t capture everything. But I do think it is critical to incorporate into the photograph what our eyes are able to capture. Because when the brain has to do special gymnastics to make sense of what it is seeing then its ability to translate the imagery into something that makes sense is jeopardized.

Thinking about the above, my approach has been to study what the differences are between true reality and what our eyes and brain are doing to interpret what is real using the equipment that we have.  In that way, I can determine what is important to be included in an autostereoscopic photograph and what isn’t so important. I have discovered many things with this approach that aren’t obvious on the surface. For example, the brain expects certain disparities from the left eye to the right eye. When those disparities are exceeded, the brain makes a big deal about it (giving us a headache for example). When those disparities are too similar, then the brain rejects the imagery as “real” to a greater or lesser extent depending on the content of the imagery.

As to the relationship of time with the space depicted – that has yielded some fascinating areas that I am keen to study in much greater detail. It seems that we do have the ability to make sense of a frozen moment of space/time even though it isn’t anything we would ever experience in real life (or is it?). Many autostereoscopic images illicit emotions associated with looking at dead things. I don’t think this is a coincidence. And I believe the reason for this goes much deeper than simple association of things that don’t move to dead things.

What’s Happening?

I received the go ahead to begin work on the worlds largest high resolution AMPED 3D™ photograph to be displayed at the entrance to Boston Logan Airport’s terminal C. After scouting many locations, one scene will be shot from the end of the runway as the jets take off with Boston in the background. Another scene will be a life size view from the ramp to the open door of a jet (to be determined actual make/model/etc.

I will be using my array of Canon 5D Mark 2 cameras in a custom configuration and there will be a lot of post processing and compositing so as to maintain as much detail as possible with such a large print (twelve feet in length). The image will be viewed from approximately 10 feet away as people pass by it exiting/entering the terminal from the lower level.

The day I was supposed to begin shooting, I had to fly to Kansas for my Mother-In-Law’s funeral and the day after the funeral my father was rushed to the emergency room for blood clots which later turned into a diagnosis as terminally ill which I had to help organize 24/7 care. So, needless to say things got delayed.

Hopefully,everything will be rescheduled and back on track in the first week of September. I will be posting more information soon. However, I am already thinking of ways to accellerate my acquisition of H4D Hasselblad 60 megapixel cameras to build my next system. I am presently talking with various investors – and if you know anyone, you might put them in touch with me! I will be trying to put funding in place by the end of the year so that work on my system can begin in Sweden at the factory.

More coming…

Disney Vacation and 3D Thinking…

I am just back from a week in Orlando where I had some much needed family time. The only 3D experience I had was at Disney’s Hollywood Studio theme park where we went to the Kodak Muppet 3D theater. The entrance had a large lenticular poster that was a disappointment. I’d give anything to have a chance to show them what is possible! Unfortunately, I have no contacts at Disney and have not had success getting anyone’s attention there. 

The 3D muppet movie was a tour de force of poke your eye out 3D “effects”. My eyes were significantly crossed for most of the time and I could feel the eye strain. The movie was short, and therefore the discomfort was really short lived so as not to be a major concern.  I enjoyed it (again) as much as the first time I saw it a few years ago.

I think the movie was still representative of what most people think about in terms of what a 3D movie is. Gimmick – stuff popping out of the screen seeking oohs and ahhhs from the audience.  The polarized glasses were less than ideal – they could use an upgrade ;^) as the lens material was all wrinkled I suspect from heat.

The whole experience got me thinking about autostereoscopic technology for theme parks and special purpose educational and entertainment venues.  Signage with a greater level of accuracy depicting information! That could really be useful, and cost effective. Just a small amount of observation showed that only a tiny percentage of people notice any of the signage and rarely give it more than a passing glance.  There is a lot to explore with regards to the potential. As I read trade publications, there is considerable copy devoted to hardware and scant attention given to content creation. This is bass akwards in my humble opinion.  I’d say the hardware represents about 10% of the contribution to a sign’s effectiveness – yet it receives 90% of the budget in many cases. Inexperienced designers throw content from stock photography and clip art together with papyrus type face text and think they have a work of art. No thought is given to the purpose of the sign or what information it is to impart or what action is desired on the part of the viewer.

I did a small case study type investigation with Yankee Candle for retail point of information signage and I am motivated to spend some additional time on this. The opportunities appear to be considerable.

AMPED 3D in Washington, D.C.

Last week I was in Washington, D.C. for a meeting with the director and exhibit staff at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. While I was there, I decided to pull out the 12 camera rig and take some architectural photographs on the mall, since the weather was reasonably nice.

I specialize in “life size” photography and people have asked me how I can take a life size photograph of a building?

The answer is that for me, the “life size” definition is the size that is perceived at the point of capture. So, if the cameras are several hundred yards away from the subject, life size would be the size as perceived viewing from that distance, not the actual size of the building.  My goal with each photograph is to present it as you would see the imagery in real life.

The most impressive photograph I was able to take was from the end of the mall at the Lincoln Memorial looking towards the Washington Monument with the Capital building in the background and the reflecting pool in the foreground.  There were just enough clouds passing by so that I was able to get perfect highlights with just the right amount of specularity on the Capital building in the background. But in order for the shot to represent true to life luminance detail I ended up needing to bracket the shot with multiple exposures (HDR photography). Normally, I am able to expand the dynamic range from the single shot, but in this sunlit outdoor example there was just too much range to capture even with my jeeped cameras.

Fortunately, not much moves when shooting buildings ;^) and I was able to have, in effect, what was a 1/2 second exposure as the cameras can fire three photographs in 1/2 second. Now the tough part comes, where I have to match and align 36 photographs and HDR merge them and interlace them into a single autostereoscopic image. Guess what? I’m still working on it ;^) But I will post an animation here in a few days to show the perspectives.

When I’m finished, I’ll have the most realistic photograph from the perspective of the Lincoln Memorial looking towards the Capital building that has ever been taken.  That in itself would be worth the trip – add to that the meeting at the Smithsonian and this was a fantastic trip!

Avatar 3D VFX Supervisor Evaluates Almont Green 3D Photo

Sometimes, it is a good idea to get a reality check and see if what you think is “good” is really good. I have tried to get as many samples as possible and see what 3D photography is out there. 

So far, I haven’t been able to find anything that I felt was good.  So I decided that perhaps I should find someone at the top of their game and send them one of my 3D photographs to see how my work stacks up.

I sent a 3D photograph to Chuck Comisky. His credits include:
3D Stereo VFX Supervisor for the motion picture AVATAR
S3D and visual effects for Ghosts of the Abyss and Aliens of the Deep IMAX 3D documentaries
T2-3D Battle Across Time theme park attraction producer
The list of producers and major studios he has worked with is like reading a list of who’s who in the motion picture industry (ILM, Disney, Fox, Sony/Columbia, Paramount, Universal…)

Today, I received an email from Mr. Comisky. He wrote:

“Yes, I did get it [sample 3D autostereoscopic photograph]. It is as stunning a stereo photo using lenticular as I have seen. It visually rivals holography in clarity… Keep up the good work.”

AMPED 3D™

With all of the confusion regarding the term 3D I decided to trademark AMPED 3D, AMPED being an acronym for:

Autostereoscopic
Multi
Perspective
Extended
Dynamics

AMPED 3D™ photography really describes the type of 3D I’m doing in a concise way and, hopefully, will help to differentiate my product. From now on, I intend to use it and incorporporate its use into all of my writings, website information and literature.

I also like it that AMPED implies energized and a sense of being “jacked up” in an amplified way. If you think about it, stereovision energizes our perception of the space around us and unlocks our awareness of other enhancing perception cues.

This ties in nicely with my next blog post, coming soon: “Secondary depth cues unlock ambiguity and reinforce stereovision’s immersive qualities”.

Stay tuned!

 AMPED 3D™ is a registered trademark of Almont Green.

High Dynamic Range is Essential For Compelling 3D Photography

High dynamic range or HDR photography extends the number of luminance values in a photograph. What this means in layman’s terms is that dark parts of an image still have detail and don’t turn into a black blob of ink and bright parts of an image don’t blast to white. This is essential for 3D multiperspective photography because the most compelling photographs present to the eyes in the same way real life is presented to the eyes. Our eyes adapt instantly to changing light conditions and we see an amazing tonal range that extends far beyond a regular photograph with standard dynamic range. We see many subtle shades of darkness and white sand in the bright sun still has sand grain detail that is easily visible although we might have to squint.  The dynamic range of our eyes greatly exceed the capability of cameras – both film and digital.

Take a look at this photograph as an example. Note on the right side standard dynamic range photo how the black fabric turns to black and the hair ribbon blasts to white. A considerable amount of detail is lost making it difficult and even impossible for some parts of the image to have clearly defined perspectives. (See blue circle blow up for detail)

One might argue that it is better for flat single perspective photographs as well. And for some that is true, however, often times a photographer wants to simplify the photograph or add dramatic lighting and these subtle changes in luminance (brightness) are less important. Also, with a flat photograph more detail in the background can conflict with the main area of interest in the photograph. Without dimensional depth to set it out, too much detail can be undesirable for a flat single perspective photo. With the example shown here one could argue that the detail of the black fabric takes away slightly from the baby. But in 3D there is a world of difference that has to be seen to be appreciated. That extra dynamic range provides the detail in 3D to clearly position the baby in it’s space and the stereovision perception is greatly enhanced. It looks far more realistic.

So, how do you get more dynamic range out of a camera? In my case, I have imaging sensors and special processing that extend the image data captured to 18 bits per color (red, green and blue)**.  A regular camera with jpeg output is limited to 8 bits per color. Those extra bits I am able to obtain with my custom rig contain subtle changes in luminance levels that can be processed and printed to appear similar to the way the eyes would see them in real life.

Another way (actually the way most people do it) to make an HDR photograph is to take 3 or more photographs in quick succession with a bracketing camera option where the shutter speed is different for each photograph. Then using special HDR software they combine the different exposures into a single photograph with a broad tonal range. Sometimes the effects of this processing is very effective. For example, room interiors with windows look much more natural. Like anything though, it can be overdone and create very unnatural looking images. A big problem with this approach is that you are limited to shots that have no movement during the multiple exposures. In order for me to take action shots, I had to create a system that captures all of the data at once, at shutter speeds in the hundreths of a second range.

** A regular Canon Camera RAW image has 16 bits per color. I do use Canon sensors but I  have been able to tweek things to get an extra couple of bits per color at the expense of error correction, which I must perform in a separate process with a computer. It will remain a secret how I do it, unless and until I am able to obtain a patent for the process. If you really have sharp eyes, you might also be able to detect that I’ve reduced color fringing and ringing around sharp luminance transitions. That’s another benefit to extra bits.

3D Movies & 3D Photos Have Barely Scratched the Surface of Their Potential to Show Us Amazing Things

I believe that very few people fully appreciate all that seeing a fused image from two eyes (stereovision) makes possible. A fused image provides much more than merely depth cues.

For example, today was a sunny day and I took the family to a hill for sledding fun. As I looked at the snow I became mesmerized with all of the information I could glean looking at it. The specular highlights reflecting off of the snow provided amazing information about the density and texture of the snow. Without touching the snow I could see that it was of the right consistency to make a perfect snowball.  It wasn’t powdery. It wasn’t hard. It had a granular look that told me it could be easily manipulated. In some areas, the snow had a hard covering which was also evident from the way light reflected off of the surface.

Upon closer examination, holding one hand in front of my left eye and then switching to cover the right eye I could see that many of the pinpoints of light reflecting off of the snow that were visible in my left eye were completely invisible in my right eye and vice versa. This is an example of binocular disparity and possibly binocular rivalry since points of light were mutually exclusive to each eye.  But wait, as I looked at the snow and the points of light, I didn’t notice anything other than it looked three dimensional and “normal”.  But how could it with such gross disparity between views?

Evidently, my brain was doing what it does all of the time: fusing the views together into a single image that make it possible for me to see all of the subtleties of the snow.

I suspected that the sparkle color disparity in each eye also told me something about the purity of the snow. So I looked at areas of snow that were untouched and areas that had been splashed by the road and road salt. Telling the difference was trivial. I could spot the cleaner snow in an instant even though both examples were white and would look no different in a regular photograph.  My analysis continued and I discovered I could see how the top of the snow was at the melting point in some areas and clearly not at the melting point in other areas. This provided a clue as to the depth of the snow. Upon investigation that was definitely the case. I could even tell where snow had fallen from a tree and packed together the snow grains in a different pattern to the rest of the snow. I could see how the snow had been disturbed and even was able to estimate from which branch the snow had fallen based upon the reflection of the snow’s surface. The more I looked, the more information I discovered. I wonder if the sparkles of light were being interpreted in my brain just as satellites that image dust in space can tell the mineral and gas components of the dust by evaluating the wavelengths of light. One eye was receiving one set of the sun’s reflective data and my brain was comparing it to the different reflective data from the other eye. That had to explain it, because when I blocked one of my eyes the snow detail seemed to diminish and take on a more generic look.

Also, as I began to understand what I was able to see I started to “see” more. And this, to me,  is an amazing property of stereovision. The more you look, the more you see. Because you can compare the perspectives and the subtleties are very telling. 

As we moved from the sledding area to around the fire I looked down at the grass and was surprised to instantly detect a tiny baby grasshopper resting motionless on a blade of grass of identical color to the grasshopper. It should have been invisible but my stereovision detected a bump on the blade of grass that didn’t look quite right. It was my depth perception that made the grasshopper visible. Or was it? I noticed that the blade of grass the grasshopper was on moved in the wind differently than the other blades of grass and that was what I initially noticed. Not the grasshopper. It was the disparity and how it was exaggerated by stereovision that really gave me the clue. It was a combination of visual perceptive components that made the grasshopper visible.

All of the above convinces me that seeing with two eyes, as a single fused image, may be more complex than most of us imagine. The notion that the only important component is parallax might be misguided. I say this in reference partially to the many companies offering 2D to 3D conversion services. The only thing they convert is a parallax shift of single perspective information and apply a morph at the transition points. When so much information is left out, I wonder if it will dull our senses? I wonder if we can get used to not seeing the way we normally see. And I wonder if this is a good thing.

I’m guessing that it isn’t a good thing and I am continuing the quest to capture in a photograph all of the information that is provided with multiple perspectives.

Just Posted On LinkedIn: 3D Digital Signage… Who Needs It And Why?

I just made a post on the business networking site LinkedIn in the Stereoscopic 3-D Professionals Worldwide group.  Below is a copy of that post. My next post on this blog will be what I’ve learned about the questions posed below and how 3D signage can overcome the problems mentioned below:

———————–

With the closing down of the Phillips WoW division, (obviously they couldn’t make it profitable) how do you think 3D digital signage will ultimately succeed? What are the compelling reasons retailers or advertisers will spend the extra money (perhaps considerable) for this tech especially given that all of it will be computer graphics driven and for the most part, out of the control of their art departments.

Also, what are the reasons a large retailer would buy expensive product from relatively small and in some cases startup business ventures who are offering proprietary systems? If a company the size of Phillips abandons the tech doesn’t that signal that it is highly possible a small company might fail? And with a proprietary system, wouldn’t that company be left holding the bag with a bunch of worthless stuff?

Stereoscopic optical illusions aren’t inherently positive. Indeed, where conflict exists in the brain in terms of what is seen not matching what is normally experienced in reality their is demonstrable subliminal negative impressions that light up in the brain (there are articles in neuroscience publications about this).

If composited or computer graphics 3D signage had demonstrable and consistent high levels of ROI (return on investment) wouldn’t you see it everywhere and see it being used consistently and at great volume by companies that tried it, had a positive experience and use it extensively because of consistent results?

Let’s say it’s the year 1500 and you are a manufacturer of artist paint brushes that make it possible to apply paint to canvas with greater accuracy. In your booth you hold up a Leonardo da Vinci painting and say that with your new technology brushes anyone can paint with this amazing amount of detail and nuance. How many repeat customers do you acquire because they bought your brushes and now paint like da Vinci?

This sales tactic has been repeated through history and for some reason does not achieve a sustained postitive ROI. Despite its track record, this method of selling continues – I guess because people must believe that eventually it will work. Either that or they are only interested in an initial sell-in and don’t care about repeat sales to the same customer. I’m not sure, perhaps someone could enlighten me?

Multi-perspective content creation is both art and science. If both are not executed at the highest level, can consistent success be achieved? Is it enough to have the technology or tools of the trade without the artistry? In the case of Phillips, evidently it was not. What are others doing that is different?

The Case For Multi-Perspective Baby Photography

When we look at babies with our two eyes we don’t see double. Our brain fuses the image from each eye together into a single image with depth. We see the space under Baby’s precious chin, those cute dimples and the incredible space between each toe and finger. It is real, tangible, precious and emotionally charged with love. It is a savored moment because once experienced it is lost forever. People have tried to preserve these memories with their cameras, but the photographs they take flatten the experience to only that which can be shown on the surface of the print. It is great as a reminder of the experience but it is missing the realness of the moment.

Luckily, we live at a time when photographic artistry and technology is advancing to fill what has been lacking – space, depth and dynamics.

It is now possible for photographs to be taken and printed where you can see the space… where you can see a different perspective in each eye and fuse it into a single image with depth… where you can experience the moment and feel the emotion and remember.

This is what my 3D photographic art is all about.

What are the photographs like?

When I show my multi perspective photographs to children they respond saying “that’s a real picture”. It is real, especially to young kids, because they are more open to new experiences and accept what they see at face value. It looks like what they perceive in real life so it is a real picture. Adults have a more emotional reaction to my photographs because the experience is unque and magical. But the magic is not mystical, it is science. My photographs present a different perspective to each eye. And it is also scientifically crafted to image what we see normally in very precise ways. For example: it is a life size photograph. It is a photograph with the dynamic range of the human eye where instead of seeing blasted out white areas or areas of black blotchyness you see the subtle texture and detail as you would see in real life.

It is different (better) than 3D movies.

Unlike 2 perspective “3D” movies like Avatar which are experienced sitting and looking at the screen from a single point of reference wearing special glasses, Almont Green multiperspective photographs can be seen without special glasses. You look at them like any other photograph and as you shift your head and position you can change your perspective and see around edges just as you do in real life. Some Almont Green photographs have as many as 24 different perspectives.

While I’m trying my best to describe these photographs to you – it is a situation where words don’t work. You have to experience it first hand to really “get it”. It is a great dilemma because when people look at a website they expect to understand what the product is. But sadly, there is no way to recreate my photographs on a computer monitor. Not even close.

So if you have read all the way down to here, I have a special offer for you! My new studio opening in Medway, MA has been delayed as the build out won’t be completed for a grand opening in March as planned. (We now expect to open in April.) So during this time, I have decided to take some multiperspective baby photographs for free, limited of course to time and availability. I will respond to as many requests as possible. In lieu of payment, I ask that you make a donation to your favorite charity.

Click the link to the website and contact me via email for more information.

 

My Visit With Neuroscientist Susan Barry

A few days ago I had the opportunity to drive out to Western Massachusetts and visit “Stereo Sue” the acclaimed neuroscientist and author of Fixing My Gaze. (see: www.fixingmygaze.com and www.stereosue.com )  I wheeled in a box full of my photographs and we immediately jumped into a quick viewing session which was full of gasps and wonderment.  She was full of comments like: “Look at how the dogs mouth sticks out of the photograph…”  and  “It looks like I can reach in and grab that…” I could tell she was really enjoying my photographs and that was especially gratifying. She later emailed me that it was the highlight of her week.

After viewing my photographs we began discussing her personal journey of learning to see with stereopsis. She showed me various devices she used in her own vision therapy. One was a very interesting glasses-like device with prisms. The visual field of one eye is shifted upward and the visual field of the other eye is shifted downward so that you see the world displaced with two separate and unique perspectives. I experienced one eye becoming dominant and then the other eye. Indeed, when looking at a pencil and pressing it against an object the perception was creepy in that I wasn’t sure which eye was seeing the “real” pencil.  Seeing two views of the world instead of a single merged image with depth provides insight into just how significant the brain is in terms of how we perceive the world around us.  We talked about how people without stereopsis see things reflected in a mirror as being on the surface of the mirror. Before she acquired stereo vision, Sue said she had no concept of being able to see into a mirror. Despite numerous literary references to “through the looking glass” and other descriptive information it wasn’t until she acquired stereo vision as an adult that she had any idea of what looking into a mirror could be like.

As we talked it became very clear to me that deep emotion is closely linked with the ability to see with stereo vision. As she described learning to see the world with depth, her passion and joy was effervescent.  While I have always felt I knew the significance of seeing in 3D, I can say that before reading her book and meeting and speaking with her that I did not fully appreciate the significance of stereo vision. As the discussion progressed we talked about how we perceive a single perspective photograph and how that compares to a life size multi perspective photograph. She felt it very plausible that brain imaging would show a dramatic difference between these two types of visual stimuli.  The anecdotal evidence is there in terms of how people respond to multi perspective photographs.

Sue provided me with lecture notes and articles from acclaimed optometrist and vision therapy pioneer Dr. Frederick Brock.  This is proving to be fascinating reading and I am learning a great deal. It is evident that Brock’s research, while meant to be written in the context of providing therapy to cross-eyed or walleyed patients is much more with very interesting anecdotal notes and telling observations. One such observation was when a girl, just learning to see with stereo vision, was shown a stereo card for the first time with a photo of an animal. She replied that that photo was “real” as compared to the other pictures which were not stereo.

Considering the human preference for looking at faces I plan over the next few weeks to begin experimenting with autostereoscopic photographs to determine how multi-perspective photographs compare to single perspective photographs. Specifically, I want to gather statistical data on memory and how it is effected by different kinds of image presentation. My belief, based on anecdotal evidence is that there will be a significant difference and I want to understand the pros and cons of that as it might relate to educational materials, advertising materials and so forth.