Ok, but here's what I'm talking about... that 2-D digital photograph of an image which can be made 3-D with a laser in real life--which I'm assuming would still look 2-D to you even if the photograph was of the 3-D illumination--still looks literally 3-D to me on my standard 2D flat computer monitor, as do most other pictures around the net labeled "holographic image"... I mean they don't leap off my screen into my living room and start talking to me, but I know enough about eyesight, depth, and stereograms to know that what I'm seeing is a 3D effect resulting from the intrinsic nature/composition of the holograms (my brother can see them too). When I look at your gallery images here, some look very slightly 3D, enough that I know if those exact holograms were designed/arranged/maximized for viewing on a 2-D digital image (like most of the images around the net labeled "hologram[/holographic] image"), that they would look literally 3D to me-- not a picture of a cow or a video game character rendered in 3D, but literally 3D, such as a stereogram or autostereogram.BobH wrote:The examples of hologram images you posted are misleading at best. The first one is a picture of an actual hologram recording which, if illuminated with laser light, will reconstruct a 3D image some distance from the recording.
Once again, this is what I mean... you mentioned a type of 3D image, so I googled them and found ones that looked 3D to me on my LCD monitor, and I didn't even know you were talking about a type of image that's mainly associated with special types of viewing devices! And since you say some people can see them and they're known to pop out as 3D, then that's more proof that I'm not high on pot when I say that holograms pop out at me on 2D; I just haven't heard anyone talking about holograms looking 3D. Maybe my brain is incredibly better trained to see these things than most people (which would make perfect sense because my life largely involves multi-dimensional concepts, if not visual ones specifically), but if stereograms, autostereograms, and autostereoscopic images are all well known to be intrinsically 3D viewable on flat surfaces (which I can see extremely well), then it shouldn't be absurd to throw in holograms as yet another 3D image.BobH wrote:The autostereoscopic displays I mentioned are not the autostereoscopic images made by computers, that you stare at while controlling your eye pointing and focus to try and see (I never could ... they suck).
SO... my initial assumption was that a "holography" board was largely about designing 3-dimensional images for standard 2D screens (as well as your laboratory holograms), a concept I was baffled that I didn't know about. Now it makes sense; no one really sees this stuff. My confusion was, well, why aren't half the websites I go to (literally) 3D websites that pop off my screen. I've visited your links and see yah, all this 3D stuff is about special surfaces and viewing devices. But what I was wondering about was the extent of software that makes 3D images for standard screens... And it doesn't seem to exist as no one else even sees this stuff! LoL. I mean it's not just me on all of Earth, I'm sure plenty of other people see this stuff, but I guess it's too rare to warrant a common level interest.
Anyway, so I suppose my methods might be worth developing, because I've made images much more 3-D looking than anything else I've seen online; hence they'd stand out to a lot more people, and are probably even more applicable to 3-D viewing devices/technologies. I'm still on the border of just throwing them up here or on the web, but then again, having something worth selling for once in my artistic life might be cool too =(. I'll let you know. Either way, thanks for your input... it's been invaluable even in a dozen messages.
