One way to improve the 3D effect is to shoot the pictures with the same path your viewer would see it. In the example of an image hanging on a wall you would want to shoot them in an exact straight line across the subject, because the viewer will pass by or move their head from side to side. For an image intended to be held in your hand, you would want to shoot the pictures in an arc around the subject, because the viewer will rotate the image with their hand.
This is great advice, thank you. I'll try with this method again. Do you recommend increasing focal length to offset the increased distance of each camera toward the ends of the multi camera rig?
@creativ.vision I'm assuming you mean: if the cameras are in a straight line, so that the distance to subject changes at ends of the line, should you change camera focal length to keep the subject the same size in every picture? Great question! If you did manage to keep the subject the same (either by focal length or post-image zooming), then the background would increase in size even more. But like you say, if you keep focal length the same, your subject would shrink towards the ends. Neither is ideal. Putting all the cameras further away on a long focal length would minimise the effect but not remove it. Certainly worth playing around with the resulting photos to compare would be worthwhile. However, I also have another idea! What about keeping the cameras curved round the subject in a circle, but reducing the angle (distance from camera to camera) progressively as you move away from centre towards the ends? You basically mimic the straight line effect, but keep cameras same distance to subject so subject and background stay consistently sized still. You could work it out with trigonometry and maths, but easier to do with string tape measure and tape. On studio floor, mark with a pieces of tape in a straight-line where you would put equally spaced cameras if trying that method. But also make a circle around subject that meets to the centre camera. Now using string from subject, find where each camera mark on straight line would intersect the circle, and actually put the camera there, rather than on the line. You will get a hybrid where the angle of view to subject will match that of viewer waking down corridor but subject and background will stay same size! Good luck
Ever since I was a kid and saw my first 3-D picture on a postcard back in the 50's, I've wanted to create using a technique that would give that effect, tinkering with oil painting processes, etc. I stumbled onto your site this morning by pure accident, while searching for decent tips on micro photography. That was pure magic..because I truly did not even know this technique, that is so powerful, was in use. Thank you for sharing your beautiful results thus far, and for sharing so much information about how they were achieved. You have a generous heart. A big thumbs up, new subscriber.. and yeah, you do rock.
Great concept and photos. My tip to improve your lenticular print results would be to use more frames - to test it, you could digitally create inbetween frames from your existing frames or, (if you'd rather keep it all analogue) reshoot the images with 40 or frames. With more frames, in general the image will look better as when it's interlaced it interpolates the frames and linearly blurs the transition from one frame to the next. (keep the final output at the same PPI you used before) It is especally effective in areas with lots of parallax, for example at the rear of your image you can clearly see the image jerking from frame to frame. With more source frames this will appear be smoothed out. People tend to interlace only the theoretical maximum number of frames their printer can print for a particular LPI - eg 10 or 12 frames. It's true that your printer won't ever print any more than that, but by using more source frames the final print will look smoother. (even though technically it's the same resolution and the same number of frames) It can't work miracles, and it's partly a personal preference of course - it will introduce a bit more of a blur in the horizontal axis which you might not like - the more parallax there is, the more the frames will be blurred/smeared together.
First off, I'm honored that you commented on this, because your channel was a huge source of inspiration and fascination for me last year. Secondly, could I work with you to create a more successful version of my 3d portraits? I'd love to see what you're capable of making with my source photographs. Thank you for this input, you're speaking from experience here and it's invaluable to the rest of us.
This was so cool, I'm a 3D artist, so producing 3D images is part of my daily woes, but I've never found a cool way to show it on cons or even at my own home, as 3d displays are absurdly expensive, or too big, or both. This is a "cheap" solution that could get me to the 90% of the expensive solutions for displaying moving pictures. I'm going to tray with that 50 LPI sheet, but I'm already thinking on a fine art printer and a higher LPI with more smooth frames, to display action shoots. Amazing stuff, thank you!!
If you end up with a result you like, I'd be very excited to see it! It would be very cool to see the results with larger print dimensions, higher LPI and higher DPI counts! Also consider purchasing print paper with a blank backside (no logo printed,) just in-case you come with an idea to frame these with backlighting, maybe using some white opaque plexi! I've noticed great amounts of detail in the prints return when backlit. Good luck!
I used to use a sewing pins for hemming to get the bubbles out of my laminations. You can just find the bubbles from the paper side and poke a pin hole that will self heal from the luminant glue after the bubble is gone. Works like a charm.
wow! honestly really like the glitchiness of the result (though I may be biased as I work in graphic design and not photography haha). Was looking into lenticular prints earlier this year but gave up due to a lack of consistent resources, so this is super helpful!
You are a good teacher and story teller. I love the lenticular 3-d effect and always assumed it required way more precision that anyone could pull off at home. I hope to give this a try someday because its so cool.
I have an analog Nishika N9000 camera with 4 lenses, and I’m planning to make a video about it. Your idea sounds like a great source of inspiration! Thanks
that's the first thing i thought when i started the video, lenticular prints could be the perfect way of showcasing nishika 4 lenses photos! definitely need to see this
That is a pretty solid result. I've tried to make lenticular business cards myself a few years ago and it didn't go that well. I used the looking glass plugin to generate different views of an image, and later my own camera setup for it. But I struggled too much with getting the printing resolution and LPI matched. It never looked quite right so I gave up on it as I couldn't find enough information online. So then I tried getting a printing company to print them for me, but they revesed the image order in the print as it wasn't displayed on their website which way the order would go. And I also found out that the conversion of RGB to CMYK was too dark for my renders.
This was fun. I don't know if one of your main troubles is maintaining registration. I have troubles maintaining alignment after registration when I start to peel the backing (for layered stickers, not fancy pictures). The method you used by clamping and then peeling towards the clamps is problematic for me because the bubble underneath/in between changes the distance. For important things, I have tried two things. Splitting the backing in the middle so I can peel away from one half of the clamps works for my stickers, but would be problematic for you because you risk damaging your film and you'd have to press it from the center out. If you had some space to spare on one end (say the top), you could split the backing close to that end, and peel/adhere that little strip first with the clamps in place. Then you can remove your clamps and peel the main body from there as you feed into your press. I just know that with such tight tolerances, that's where I'd struggle the most. Good work!
I do have difficulty maintaining registration with my current approach, and I think your idea to split some of the backing might help quite a bit. Once I have even half an inch adhered, the print is unlikely to shift and the clamps can be taken off. I really do think a proper manual rolling press would help as well, as you could use it to adhere the first half inch, then roll the print back out in reverse and safely remove the film backing from the rest of the lenticular sheet (being careful not to let it touch the print outside of the press, that is!)
It is possible to cut them! Just know that as you go down in size and viewing distance decreases, the size of the lenticule stay the same. In other words, since you'll be looking at a 5x7 print much closer than you would look at an 8x10 print, the lenticule ridges will be far more apparent. I initially began with 50 LPI 5x7 sheets (I think from ebay,) but I was unsatisfied with the result - the image felt "blocky", almost pixelated. When I moved up in size, the increase in viewing distance made the lenticules relative appearance much smaller, so the print ends up looking much clearer. If you do go smaller, a higher LPI count will help, but they are much more difficult to register!
Could the pitch you are getting from the calibration stages be affected by the backing film adding a gap between lenticular sheet, and the printed calibration page? I'm presuming not, but if you think your issues are pitch related, you might want to waste (invest!) a lenticular sheet by sticking it to the finer calibration page, so you get to to study that perfectly with no gap from the protective film. Of course that probably won't make any difference if your issue isn't pitch related.
That's a great thought, thank you for pointing that out, I hadn't thought of it. I'm sure that the plastic film effects the pitch to some degree, to what extent I'm not sure. It seems they offer lenticular sheets both with and without the backing, so maybe purchasing sheets without the adhesive and conducting a pitch test to compare could be informing. That being said, I really think it has more to do with my skill issues with alignment - first aligning, and then keeping them aligned while sending the print through the press. That first ruined print you see in the very beginning actually features my best alignment so far (how funny is that?) There was no vertical banding visible in the print, only the lenticules, and it really looked quite good in proper lighting. Unfortunately, I let the bottom of the print touch the adhesive backing before the rest of the print was adhered, and it formed that air crease.
Take more shots of the subject, you used ten here, skip 20 and jump to 30 shots. I expect the striping to still exist but be 1/3 the width. Also you could wrap a cylindrical image with a sheet of lenticular film, allowing the rear of the object to be seen. Can’t wait to see what you come up with
I suspect my issue with the striping has to do with improper alignment on my behalf. That is a really interesting idea you have, though! But from what I understand, increasing the frame count beyond what the lenticular lens can resolve could muddy the image quite a bit, as the lenses might not be able to effectively separate the images by that point. Even if it were clear, though, it would drastically lower the viewing angle for each frame, causing the frames to cycle far too quickly. To pack in more frames, we would either need to choose a lenticular sheet with a lower LPI count to widen the viewing angle (600 dpi / 20 lpi = 30 frames), or print at a higher resolution (1500 dpi / 50 lpi = 30 frames).
I would say that it's not the go-to printer, but a good viable low cost option. It depends on what you want. It uses cheap ink, which is helpful because it's affordable, but it's a dye based ink. Dye based inks fade much faster than pigment based inks. It also has a lower native resolution than Epson pigment ink printers typically have (600 vs 720) which is something to consider.
This is great. Could this work shooting the model with bursts of images and walking around, instead of buying 10 cameras and rigging them ? And thus this could also work with any video ? Or do you need to turn around your model or have it not moving ?
@benrossRA I'm sure this could work with video or photo bursts using a single camera, though a rail would help keep the camera at a consistent height through all frames. I'm only using multiple dslrs for resolution and for long exposure capabilities.
@@LumiereNoirePhotography I haven't heard of motion lenticular sheets, I would read into the difference - if there is one. My guess is that there may not be a difference, but I could be wrong.
I haven't gotten my hands on one to confirm, but I would not be surprised if someone could generate something using a setup like mine for the Looking Glass products. Look into photogammetry. Some systems use hundreds of cameras to create 3D models for a wide range of applications, including video games. Those camera setups are similar to what I use to capture my photographs for lenticular prints, but on a much larger scale and with numerous axis.
If anyone just wants good surprisingly affordable short run and even one-off lenticular prints, z axis prints from washington is your guy. Totally unsolicited, simple fact. He works with a lot of top artists and architecture firms around the world.
Oh no... this is cool. I was already in the process of researching photo printers to start selling prints, but now I have to resist getting distracted going down a multi-month rabbit whole of researching fly's eye lens arrays, security/anti-counterfeiting printing methods, different micro-optics manufacturers, ways to- ...oh god... I've already started. Seriously though, once I get a printer I will 100% be trying lenticular prints and I'm really interested in trying different things. Not that I wasn't serious about getting distracted going down a multi-month rabbit hole. I do that all the time. I've just decided to stop writing self-fulfilling prophecies of my own downfall and to instead do the opposite. Like, what if I scan an object with a lenticular lens on the scanner bed then make a lenticular print from the scan? Would the orientation of the lens array with respect to the scanner have a significant effect? I do a lot of invisible light photography so what if I take the same photo with different UV,IR,visible light filters and use a lenticular print to essentially display an image with more than 3 color channels? Fresnel lenses are another type of common flat lens/lens-array, what about printing/scanning/playing with those?
How has your journey gone since? The rabbit hole is deep! Fly's eye prints are so cool, I think it opens up yet another dimension of creative possibilities by adding another axis to play with. I'd like to try true holography someday, with lasers and such. Those are some very interesting questions and if you discover anything fascinating by following those bread crumbs, let me know!
actually - GIF stands for Graphics Interchange Format. not Japhics Interchange Format - you were correct in your pronounciation. Thanks for the video - I've always wanted to do this.
Highlights for me were the triggering 4 (four) unopened notifications, and the idea that I could not only download grape.exe for free but also sell it for free. Easy money!
not a professional, but this is the closest i get to $2000 lenticular posters. you rock
One way to improve the 3D effect is to shoot the pictures with the same path your viewer would see it.
In the example of an image hanging on a wall you would want to shoot them in an exact straight line across the subject, because the viewer will pass by or move their head from side to side.
For an image intended to be held in your hand, you would want to shoot the pictures in an arc around the subject, because the viewer will rotate the image with their hand.
This is great advice, thank you. I'll try with this method again. Do you recommend increasing focal length to offset the increased distance of each camera toward the ends of the multi camera rig?
@@creativ.vision I'm sorry, I don't know anything about photography. I just like to think in 3D :D
@creativ.vision I'm assuming you mean: if the cameras are in a straight line, so that the distance to subject changes at ends of the line, should you change camera focal length to keep the subject the same size in every picture? Great question! If you did manage to keep the subject the same (either by focal length or post-image zooming), then the background would increase in size even more. But like you say, if you keep focal length the same, your subject would shrink towards the ends. Neither is ideal. Putting all the cameras further away on a long focal length would minimise the effect but not remove it. Certainly worth playing around with the resulting photos to compare would be worthwhile. However, I also have another idea! What about keeping the cameras curved round the subject in a circle, but reducing the angle (distance from camera to camera) progressively as you move away from centre towards the ends? You basically mimic the straight line effect, but keep cameras same distance to subject so subject and background stay consistently sized still.
You could work it out with trigonometry and maths, but easier to do with string tape measure and tape. On studio floor, mark with a pieces of tape in a straight-line where you would put equally spaced cameras if trying that method. But also make a circle around subject that meets to the centre camera. Now using string from subject, find where each camera mark on straight line would intersect the circle, and actually put the camera there, rather than on the line. You will get a hybrid where the angle of view to subject will match that of viewer waking down corridor but subject and background will stay same size! Good luck
Ever since I was a kid and saw my first 3-D picture on a postcard back in the 50's, I've wanted to create using a technique that would give that effect, tinkering with oil painting processes, etc. I stumbled onto your site this morning by pure accident, while searching for decent tips on micro photography. That was pure magic..because I truly did not even know this technique, that is so powerful, was in use. Thank you for sharing your beautiful results thus far, and for sharing so much information about how they were achieved. You have a generous heart. A big thumbs up, new subscriber.. and yeah, you do rock.
This is the coolest thing I've seen for a long time on Photography
I work in the printing hub of my university and this is going to be my new obsessions :-) I’m going to ask the director to order lenticular sheets
Great concept and photos. My tip to improve your lenticular print results would be to use more frames - to test it, you could digitally create inbetween frames from your existing frames or, (if you'd rather keep it all analogue) reshoot the images with 40 or frames. With more frames, in general the image will look better as when it's interlaced it interpolates the frames and linearly blurs the transition from one frame to the next. (keep the final output at the same PPI you used before) It is especally effective in areas with lots of parallax, for example at the rear of your image you can clearly see the image jerking from frame to frame. With more source frames this will appear be smoothed out.
People tend to interlace only the theoretical maximum number of frames their printer can print for a particular LPI - eg 10 or 12 frames. It's true that your printer won't ever print any more than that, but by using more source frames the final print will look smoother. (even though technically it's the same resolution and the same number of frames)
It can't work miracles, and it's partly a personal preference of course - it will introduce a bit more of a blur in the horizontal axis which you might not like - the more parallax there is, the more the frames will be blurred/smeared together.
First off, I'm honored that you commented on this, because your channel was a huge source of inspiration and fascination for me last year. Secondly, could I work with you to create a more successful version of my 3d portraits? I'd love to see what you're capable of making with my source photographs. Thank you for this input, you're speaking from experience here and it's invaluable to the rest of us.
This was so cool, I'm a 3D artist, so producing 3D images is part of my daily woes, but I've never found a cool way to show it on cons or even at my own home, as 3d displays are absurdly expensive, or too big, or both. This is a "cheap" solution that could get me to the 90% of the expensive solutions for displaying moving pictures. I'm going to tray with that 50 LPI sheet, but I'm already thinking on a fine art printer and a higher LPI with more smooth frames, to display action shoots. Amazing stuff, thank you!!
If you end up with a result you like, I'd be very excited to see it! It would be very cool to see the results with larger print dimensions, higher LPI and higher DPI counts! Also consider purchasing print paper with a blank backside (no logo printed,) just in-case you come with an idea to frame these with backlighting, maybe using some white opaque plexi! I've noticed great amounts of detail in the prints return when backlit. Good luck!
I used to use a sewing pins for hemming to get the bubbles out of my laminations. You can just find the bubbles from the paper side and poke a pin hole that will self heal from the luminant glue after the bubble is gone. Works like a charm.
wow! honestly really like the glitchiness of the result (though I may be biased as I work in graphic design and not photography haha). Was looking into lenticular prints earlier this year but gave up due to a lack of consistent resources, so this is super helpful!
Glitchiness certainly can be fun in various media.
Wow! That's so cool!
Would love to see a follow up when you've perfected the process.
You are a good teacher and story teller. I love the lenticular 3-d effect and always assumed it required way more precision that anyone could pull off at home. I hope to give this a try someday because its so cool.
I have an analog Nishika N9000 camera with 4 lenses, and I’m planning to make a video about it. Your idea sounds like a great source of inspiration! Thanks
that's the first thing i thought when i started the video, lenticular prints could be the perfect way of showcasing nishika 4 lenses photos! definitely need to see this
Great result, and nice tip about the laminating machine too!
That is a pretty solid result.
I've tried to make lenticular business cards myself a few years ago and it didn't go that well.
I used the looking glass plugin to generate different views of an image, and later my own camera setup for it. But I struggled too much with getting the printing resolution and LPI matched. It never looked quite right so I gave up on it as I couldn't find enough information online.
So then I tried getting a printing company to print them for me, but they revesed the image order in the print as it wasn't displayed on their website which way the order would go.
And I also found out that the conversion of RGB to CMYK was too dark for my renders.
84 subs and 228 visual are a crime, thats some great stuff. Good job brother
You have the voice of a friend
I haven't even watched the video and I can already tell you did a great job
Awesome video, dare i say, tutorial!
Thanks for your time spent sharing this so professionally with us.
Great tuts for my living portrait at the school's ghost house' corridors project. My favourite part was 10:38
no idea how I stumbled upon this, but it's amazing! Had no idea you could do something like this. Good stuff!
This was fun.
I don't know if one of your main troubles is maintaining registration. I have troubles maintaining alignment after registration when I start to peel the backing (for layered stickers, not fancy pictures). The method you used by clamping and then peeling towards the clamps is problematic for me because the bubble underneath/in between changes the distance. For important things, I have tried two things. Splitting the backing in the middle so I can peel away from one half of the clamps works for my stickers, but would be problematic for you because you risk damaging your film and you'd have to press it from the center out. If you had some space to spare on one end (say the top), you could split the backing close to that end, and peel/adhere that little strip first with the clamps in place. Then you can remove your clamps and peel the main body from there as you feed into your press.
I just know that with such tight tolerances, that's where I'd struggle the most. Good work!
I do have difficulty maintaining registration with my current approach, and I think your idea to split some of the backing might help quite a bit. Once I have even half an inch adhered, the print is unlikely to shift and the clamps can be taken off. I really do think a proper manual rolling press would help as well, as you could use it to adhere the first half inch, then roll the print back out in reverse and safely remove the film backing from the rest of the lenticular sheet (being careful not to let it touch the print outside of the press, that is!)
Amazing video on this topic, can you cut the lenses to smaller pieces? on Amazon Canada the same lenses go for like $70
It is possible to cut them! Just know that as you go down in size and viewing distance decreases, the size of the lenticule stay the same. In other words, since you'll be looking at a 5x7 print much closer than you would look at an 8x10 print, the lenticule ridges will be far more apparent. I initially began with 50 LPI 5x7 sheets (I think from ebay,) but I was unsatisfied with the result - the image felt "blocky", almost pixelated. When I moved up in size, the increase in viewing distance made the lenticules relative appearance much smaller, so the print ends up looking much clearer. If you do go smaller, a higher LPI count will help, but they are much more difficult to register!
loved the process, will defo give it a try.
Oooh i wanna try this with some Blender renders
Could the pitch you are getting from the calibration stages be affected by the backing film adding a gap between lenticular sheet, and the printed calibration page? I'm presuming not, but if you think your issues are pitch related, you might want to waste (invest!) a lenticular sheet by sticking it to the finer calibration page, so you get to to study that perfectly with no gap from the protective film. Of course that probably won't make any difference if your issue isn't pitch related.
That's a great thought, thank you for pointing that out, I hadn't thought of it. I'm sure that the plastic film effects the pitch to some degree, to what extent I'm not sure. It seems they offer lenticular sheets both with and without the backing, so maybe purchasing sheets without the adhesive and conducting a pitch test to compare could be informing.
That being said, I really think it has more to do with my skill issues with alignment - first aligning, and then keeping them aligned while sending the print through the press. That first ruined print you see in the very beginning actually features my best alignment so far (how funny is that?) There was no vertical banding visible in the print, only the lenticules, and it really looked quite good in proper lighting. Unfortunately, I let the bottom of the print touch the adhesive backing before the rest of the print was adhered, and it formed that air crease.
Great video. Thank you!
great job! This is so cool! I might going to make one of my work.
Take more shots of the subject, you used ten here, skip 20 and jump to 30 shots. I expect the striping to still exist but be 1/3 the width. Also you could wrap a cylindrical image with a sheet of lenticular film, allowing the rear of the object to be seen. Can’t wait to see what you come up with
I suspect my issue with the striping has to do with improper alignment on my behalf. That is a really interesting idea you have, though! But from what I understand, increasing the frame count beyond what the lenticular lens can resolve could muddy the image quite a bit, as the lenses might not be able to effectively separate the images by that point. Even if it were clear, though, it would drastically lower the viewing angle for each frame, causing the frames to cycle far too quickly. To pack in more frames, we would either need to choose a lenticular sheet with a lower LPI count to widen the viewing angle (600 dpi / 20 lpi = 30 frames), or print at a higher resolution (1500 dpi / 50 lpi = 30 frames).
Interesting process, thank you so much for sharing. Sometimes the YT algo actually finds things that are both new to me and within my interests (:
Amazing… thanks
Thanks a lot for this ! I have a new obsession now❤
i have a new fav channel. much luv!
I see the Canon PIXMA in a couple videos. Is that the go to printer?
I would say that it's not the go-to printer, but a good viable low cost option. It depends on what you want. It uses cheap ink, which is helpful because it's affordable, but it's a dye based ink. Dye based inks fade much faster than pigment based inks. It also has a lower native resolution than Epson pigment ink printers typically have (600 vs 720) which is something to consider.
great video
Interesting!
This is great. Could this work shooting the model with bursts of images and walking around, instead of buying 10 cameras and rigging them ? And thus this could also work with any video ? Or do you need to turn around your model or have it not moving ?
@benrossRA I'm sure this could work with video or photo bursts using a single camera, though a rail would help keep the camera at a consistent height through all frames. I'm only using multiple dslrs for resolution and for long exposure capabilities.
@@creativ.vision ok, I have another interrogation, do you know the difference between motion and 3D lenticular sheets ?
@@LumiereNoirePhotography I haven't heard of motion lenticular sheets, I would read into the difference - if there is one. My guess is that there may not be a difference, but I could be wrong.
Amazing , you made my day !
hello, would images printed at kodak photobooths work_?
Can you generate something using these images for the Looking Glass Portrait, or Looking Glass Go?
I haven't gotten my hands on one to confirm, but I would not be surprised if someone could generate something using a setup like mine for the Looking Glass products. Look into photogammetry. Some systems use hundreds of cameras to create 3D models for a wide range of applications, including video games. Those camera setups are similar to what I use to capture my photographs for lenticular prints, but on a much larger scale and with numerous axis.
If anyone just wants good surprisingly affordable short run and even one-off lenticular prints, z axis prints from washington is your guy. Totally unsolicited, simple fact. He works with a lot of top artists and architecture firms around the world.
This is helpful, thank you!
This is cool!
Good job! Seems stressful 😅
❤
Can it work if you have two images like from a 3d camera?
I'm sure it can, at the very least you'll have a print that flips between two images.
When a video says "at home" it always means it costs zillions of dollars, takes many many attempts, & involves air bubbles.
🤣
Oh no... this is cool.
I was already in the process of researching photo printers to start selling prints, but now I have to resist getting distracted going down a multi-month rabbit whole of researching fly's eye lens arrays, security/anti-counterfeiting printing methods, different micro-optics manufacturers, ways to-
...oh god... I've already started.
Seriously though, once I get a printer I will 100% be trying lenticular prints and I'm really interested in trying different things. Not that I wasn't serious about getting distracted going down a multi-month rabbit hole. I do that all the time. I've just decided to stop writing self-fulfilling prophecies of my own downfall and to instead do the opposite.
Like, what if I scan an object with a lenticular lens on the scanner bed then make a lenticular print from the scan? Would the orientation of the lens array with respect to the scanner have a significant effect? I do a lot of invisible light photography so what if I take the same photo with different UV,IR,visible light filters and use a lenticular print to essentially display an image with more than 3 color channels? Fresnel lenses are another type of common flat lens/lens-array, what about printing/scanning/playing with those?
I just saw "digital fresnel holography" in a scientific abstract... oh no.
How has your journey gone since? The rabbit hole is deep! Fly's eye prints are so cool, I think it opens up yet another dimension of creative possibilities by adding another axis to play with. I'd like to try true holography someday, with lasers and such.
Those are some very interesting questions and if you discover anything fascinating by following those bread crumbs, let me know!
This is great! Gain a new sub ;)
Very noice
Nice 👌🏻 sub !
Hi John!
Isaac!! 💛💛
Cut River Bridge. CUT RIVER BRIDGE.
The U.P. is such a gem! Shot that with a drone! So cool that you recognized it!
it's pronounced jif - ruclips.net/video/ofm4XCdZzI4/видео.html
😂 A crucial mistake, thank you for the correction
actually - GIF stands for Graphics Interchange Format. not Japhics Interchange Format - you were correct in your pronounciation. Thanks for the video - I've always wanted to do this.
@@Christopher_Rush Yup you give someone a GIFT not JIFT
Highlights for me were the triggering 4 (four) unopened notifications, and the idea that I could not only download grape.exe for free but also sell it for free. Easy money!