how is that 3d? it just looks like the pic is moving
Technically it's still 2D, but you can actually see depth which is not obvious in a flat image. Look at the foreground model and then the background; it's rotation, not just image panning.
Deej, you pretty much had it right except there's a bit more to it... there are only two source images, the remaining 3 frames (out of 5 total) are intermediate morphs. I drew outlines around significant areas such as her eyes and the picket fences so that the morphing program could track where they were supposed to move to.
I actually came across these by accident, looks like the photog reeled off two photos in rapid succession but was moving at the time. These are the only two pics in the set that are near identical.
I made some pics like this with some trees... it would make you sick....
i like these better
found them on some tutorial last year sometime
That's actually why I started thinking about creating this sort of image. I was in deep inside a forest yesterday but because it's so "busy" and dense the photos ended up looking very flat. I was thinking of using a rail to move the camera laterally between shots but your idea of swapping eyes is much easier.
Anyway, it was just by pure chance that I came across the two near identical images of the model...... I thought GFY would appreciate that more than a forest.
I'm pretty sure I could do that with Photoshop and Gif Maker...not movie file needed.
If you only have a single static image then the depth needs to be synthesized. Fooling around with masking/warping/panning a single image to achieve an acceptable output would take much longer than morphing two images. As a bonus the latter is a far more accurate representation of depth.
I bet you can do some really cool shit with that morphing software...once you worked with it for a minute you could come up with some cool looking shit.
I'm still gonna go home and try to do it in Photoshop!
I bet you can do some really cool shit with that morphing software...once you worked with it for a minute you could come up with some cool looking shit.
I'm still gonna go home and try to do it in Photoshop!
If you have a strong foreground subject you should be able to enlarge it enough that you can move the background around without it being obvious... I see that sort of stuff done with old photos on the history channel all the time. It's not quite the same as stereoscopic vision since it's basically just the same as 2 or 3 two dimensional photos sitting in a viewing box, like those story books for kids.
Hmmm interesting... but in this case I was looking to show "genuine" depth rather than fiddling around with masks and synthesizing ripples (just happened to find 2 pics of that chick before I went out with a camera...)
Comment