VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6
Thread
  1. Member racer-x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    3rd Rock from the Sun
    Search Comp PM
    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.

    Let me know your opinions and share your Ideas.
    Image Attached Files
    Got my retirement plans all set. Looks like I only have to work another 5 years after I die........
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member budwzr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    City Of Angels
    Search Comp PM
    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
    Last edited by budwzr; 25th Jul 2014 at 23:00.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by budwzr View Post
    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 !
    Last edited by poisondeathray; 25th Jul 2014 at 23:54.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member budwzr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    City Of Angels
    Search Comp PM
    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.
    Last edited by budwzr; 26th Jul 2014 at 01:18.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member racer-x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    3rd Rock from the Sun
    Search Comp PM
    @ 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.
    Got my retirement plans all set. Looks like I only have to work another 5 years after I die........
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member budwzr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    City Of Angels
    Search Comp PM
    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.
    Quote Quote