Orchid XP v7 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/06 17:19:
>>> There are quite a wide range of technologies out there for generating 
>>> 3D animated images. None of them has ever become all that popular. 
>>> And certainly none of them enable you to "project" a hologram into 
>>> mid-air. ;-)
>>>
>> Well. The problem with the 3D TV system is a) recording, b) storage 
>> and c) transmission. Your talking about a *massive* increase in data.
> 
> Massive increase in data? Yes. Corresponding increase in 
> compressibility? Maybe.
> 
OK. Any voxel of open space will be zero, you will have a LOT of those.
Any voxel inside a closed surface can be set to zero, as there will be no way of 
recording nor vewing those.
Finaly, you are looking at absolutely huge compression capability, as long as 
you don't have to much non uniforn fog and smoke.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you tell stories to your kids that 
include stuff like "Once there was a polygon mesh who was very sad because he 
was only Gourard shaded."
     -- Taps a.k.a. Tapio Vocadlo

Post a reply to this message

In article <47815407@news.povray.org>, voi### [at] devnull says...
> >> There are quite a wide range of technologies out there for generating 
3D 
> >> animated images. None of them has ever become all that popular. And 
> >> certainly none of them enable you to "project" a hologram into mid-air
. ;-)
> >>
> > Well. The problem with the 3D TV system is a) recording, b) storage and
 
> > c) transmission. Your talking about a *massive* increase in data.
> 
> Massive increase in data? Yes. Corresponding increase in 
> compressibility? Maybe.
> 
> > Recording and 
> > playing back "TV", where you are using a camera to record the data, is
 
> > going to require either a) a vastly different technology, or b) some 
> > method of reading the data from two cameras, calculating a 3D mesh(s) o
f 
> > the objects in the scene, mapping textures to those, then reintegrating
 
> > them at the other end.
> 
> This technology already exists. See, for example, The Matrix. Record a 
> scene from several directions, and then pan around it in (nearly) 
> arbitrary 3D by interpolating between camera angles. Apparently they 
> call it "time slicing". (In the still image case at least.)
> 
Yeah. It uses like 18-36 cameras, or some crazy stuff like that. I.e., 
one camera per "slice" of the 360 degree pie. Its not possible in real 
time, yet, and is limited to what you can place a ring of cameras 
around. As for what they did in the Matrix. They took time slice images, 
then integrated CGI into the scenes along with it, so most of it wasn't 
time slice, or 3D in that sense anyway. Its a very limited, but very 
interested technology, and while you *could* build meshes and map 
textures with it, its just not practical, for most cases. We need 
something that uses fewer cameras, preferably two, and can "map" a scene 
the same way human vision does. I.e., build a believable 3D result, 
using limited data, and a very narrow wedge of perception. And that we 
*don't* have.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> Yeah. It uses like 18-36 cameras, or some crazy stuff like that. I.e., 
> one camera per "slice" of the 360 degree pie.

  There exists at least one documentary and one music video which use this
technique very well. The documentary has quite impressive images. Too bad
I can't remember the names.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message