A Fishing forum. FishingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FishingBanter forum » rec.outdoors.fishing newsgroups » Fly Fishing Tying
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pretty damn cool



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 11th, 2008, 03:19 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly,rec.outdoors.fishing.fly.tying
rw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,773
Default Pretty damn cool

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.
  #12  
Old January 11th, 2008, 04:47 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly, rec.outdoors.fishing.fly.tying
salmobytes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default Pretty damn cool


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.
  #13  
Old January 11th, 2008, 05:07 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly,rec.outdoors.fishing.fly.tying
rw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,773
Default Pretty damn cool

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.
  #14  
Old January 11th, 2008, 05:13 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly,rec.outdoors.fishing.fly.tying
Wolfgang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,897
Default 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


  #15  
Old January 11th, 2008, 05:23 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly, rec.outdoors.fishing.fly.tying
salmobytes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default Pretty damn cool

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.
  #16  
Old January 11th, 2008, 05:43 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly, rec.outdoors.fishing.fly.tying
Mike[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default Pretty damn cool

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
  #17  
Old January 11th, 2008, 05:51 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly,rec.outdoors.fishing.fly.tying
Wolfgang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,897
Default Pretty damn cool


"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


  #18  
Old January 11th, 2008, 06:14 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly,rec.outdoors.fishing.fly.tying
rw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,773
Default Pretty damn cool

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.
  #19  
Old January 11th, 2008, 06:27 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly, rec.outdoors.fishing.fly.tying
salmobytes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default Pretty damn cool

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).
  #20  
Old January 11th, 2008, 06:34 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly, rec.outdoors.fishing.fly.tying
salmobytes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default Pretty damn cool

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.....
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pretty damn cool Larry L Fly Fishing 29 January 14th, 2008 02:59 PM
OT pretty cool site snakefiddler Fly Fishing 4 January 24th, 2005 04:28 PM
DAMN! Guyz-N-Flyz Fly Fishing 6 December 27th, 2004 10:04 PM
OT pretty cool Larry L Fly Fishing 6 April 1st, 2004 03:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FishingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.