# Image panning (2D vs 3D)

1. I've always liked image panning aka "Ken Burns Effect" or whatever. Anyway, I figured I'd start a discussion thread about the subject to get opinions or ideas. I've been playing around with both simple 2D and 3D panning on a 2D image of some old trophies. I applied a lens distortion filter on the image for the 3D pan to give it a wide-angle look.

2. Yeah, the 2nd one looks more interesting.

Take a look at this one: http://files.videohelp.com/u/135518/Joshua%20Tree%20Rock%20Passby%20Scene%201.mp4
3. Originally Posted by budwzr
I don't think that was a photo

The reason it's more realistic for "3D" is the parallax - objects in the distance appear to move less with the camera motion than objects closer to the camera .

More convincing would be to include moves other than horizontal pans. By definition, a horizontal pan is a 2D move. e.g. slide into z-space/depth rotate, on an arc, rotate around the trophies or objects a few degrees etc. because those reveal the perspective and depth flaws of a 2D image. Much more difficult to do with a single still image of 1 angle or shot

To simulate this with a limited angle "2.5D" camera move, you could cut out objects and place them in z-space

The other method used is "3D" is projection mapping where you project textures onto geometry in 3D, but you need other angles for the shot, not just 1 still to make it good

@racer - Nice trophies !
4. No, its not a still but a similar technique. I thought I invented that, but I guess not. It came to me in a vision.

Yeah, I enjoy making pan effects too. Nowadays I would use cutouts and a projector onto planes. That example is what I call Faux 3D.

The way I did it, I just kept the rock centered using Pan. That created a swirl effect in the fore and background that tricks the eye. The other part of the trick is I zoomed in with the Pan box and slid it sideways. Thats why the image is so soft. I lost a lot of resolution.

The cam is a GoPro, and it has a 170 fisheye. That fisheye translates to what you did to your still. The wide angle.
5. @ PDR,
To simulate this with a limited angle "2.5D" camera move, you could cut out objects and place them in z-space
I've done this before and it usually gives nice results. As for the trophies, I did OK back in the day.

@ Budwzr,
The way I did it, I just kept the rock centered using Pan. That created a swirl effect in the fore and background that tricks the eye. The other part of the trick is I zoomed in with the Pan box and slid it sideways. Thats why the image is so soft. I lost a lot of resolution.
That was an interesting video. So basically you stabilized it by keeping the rock centered? It gives the impression that the road goes around the rock, a byproduct of the wide-angle lens I assume.
6. Yes, the original video was shot driving parallel to the rock, but the super-wide angle of GoPro provided a multi-angle view of the rock, and kept the rock in frame a lot longer than a normal camera shot would.

If that had been shot in wide-angle 4K, it would end up 1080 razor sharp. But nevertheless, it's still a proof of concept.

Statistics