Wow amazing tutorial, straight to the point & very well explained. Thanks you for taking the time to explain exactly witch is witch . Hey For the HP sticker what is the exact material used for that since is so thin. PVC with soft TPU??? Brother much success to you in all future projects👊🇨🇦🇬🇹👊
The virtual dept of field still has me stumped, if it really is DOF blurring then the image isn't just coming from one spot it would be distributed over a large like a captured light field. I'm wondering if I can peel it apart to see what the printed array looks like without the optics. Oh! Or maybe if I get it wet with a liquid with a similar refractive index.
Nick Moore pretty much. As you can see resolution is very limited, I assume they went with a 3x3 or 4x4 grid of image elements behind each lenslet. I've wanted to find a letter sheet sized lenslet array with lenses a couple mm across to play with printing lightfield images. I never found anything though. Perhaps buying a bunch of lenses from China and making an array is possible? Edit: so I hadn't searched for a few years, and new items have finally hit the market. Here is a site worth looking at 3dflyseye.com it has all the terminology you need to do more research.
+Robert Szasz If you could stick a microlens array over a super high res screen you could make live omni-directional "3D" images, the pixels would have to way smaller than an average screen. Maybe if you made a big version with golf ball sized lenses you could make a cloaking device for a building when seen from a few hundred meters away!
We need much, _much_ higher resolutions in our screens so we can put microlens arrays in front of them and have proper autostereoscopic 3D screens. Samsung's 560 ppi 4K screen .... pfff, don't make me laugh ;)
The Nindendo DS has uses a lenticular lens for 3D but the resolution is somewhere between 320x240 and potato. I'm putting my money on something like the CastAR system where each eye gets beamed its own active image. Then you don't need to calculate a whole world, just 2 view points.
Nick Moore I thought the 3DS uses a parallax barrier. But yeah, it would be nice to have something like this, with a good resolution, without the need for head-tracking. Now the issue of how we would produce the image data for such displays in real time is one I deliberately ignored in my original comment ;)
I've only used the 3DS a few times and it had that lenticular look, I'll have to find a teardown video of one. Heh, a 360degree image * 4k resolution is getting into IMAX territory just to run your phone!
It acts like a "real" object in that using a smaller aperture brings it into focus with the rest of the image. The light from the check mark really seems to come from an object that is not in the same plane as the cardboard backing.
I'll see if I can dissect one to get a better idea of its shape. Yes, I'm still in New Zealand for a few more months. I have to keep my videos simple until I get back to "my lab."
I think your eyes and brain are fooling you when you think both the checkmarks and the "ok" are in focus at the same time. You see multiple layers so the brain knows those not in focus will be blurred and the brain will "hide" that from you. Try holding a hand out halfway between your eyes and the screen. If you don't try too hard both will look as if in focus, but if you close one eye (the most important part for depth information at that distance) you will see either the hand or screen is quite out of focus. The other possibility: when looking at it, you were too far away from the hologram in relation to the "depth" of the hologram, so both layers really are (almost) in focus, but you were much closer with the camera. As to why the layers really have depth information? Isn't that the whole point of the lenticular hologram? When focusing something in the hologram you are not focusing on the physical plane of the hologram at all, but your focus is in front or "behind" the hologram and the physical plane of the hologram is actually be a blurred mess. Instead of focusing a single point in a scene onto a single point on the retina, a single point in the scene makes a circle on the retina OR - and that's the important step here - a circle in the scene makes a single point on the retina (its perceived color being the average of all the colors in the circle). Now the cool thing is, the small lenses present a different "circle" for the same area depending on the direction (and the slightest offset can have a huge effect as you can see in your example with the lense). So on the retina or camera sensor you see sharp points. It's hard to explain without accurate drawings.
Regular "1D" lenticular prints are not holograms but the HP one has almost all the qualities of a real hologram. It looks almost like a printed "Lytro" camera image.
Very informative, thank you !
Underrated video
Thank you for this great explanation!
Glad you liked it.
Wow amazing tutorial, straight to the point & very well explained. Thanks you for taking the time to explain exactly witch is witch . Hey For the HP sticker what is the exact material used for that since is so thin. PVC with soft TPU??? Brother much success to you in all future projects👊🇨🇦🇬🇹👊
Very detailed and easy to understand explanation 10/10! I suppose small half spheres would also make lenticulars that can be viewed from any angle
Hey Nick, just wanted to tell you that I really love your videos. Keep up the good work! Greetings from Germany
Thanks, glad you like my videos.
Learnt something new today... Thanks sir 😁
Cool! Good explanation.
Thanks!
I need to see what the image looks like under the lenses. Especially the HP one.
How that HP lenticular hologram X and y axes worked??? I need more details I want to make one by my self
That 2D array is new. Great explanation!
The virtual dept of field still has me stumped, if it really is DOF blurring then the image isn't just coming from one spot it would be distributed over a large like a captured light field.
I'm wondering if I can peel it apart to see what the printed array looks like without the optics. Oh! Or maybe if I get it wet with a liquid with a similar refractive index.
+Nick Moore a 2d array can reconstruct a lightfield, including the bluring.
Robert Szasz Cool, so it's like a Lytro Polaroid print!
Nick Moore pretty much. As you can see resolution is very limited, I assume they went with a 3x3 or 4x4 grid of image elements behind each lenslet. I've wanted to find a letter sheet sized lenslet array with lenses a couple mm across to play with printing lightfield images. I never found anything though. Perhaps buying a bunch of lenses from China and making an array is possible?
Edit: so I hadn't searched for a few years, and new items have finally hit the market. Here is a site worth looking at 3dflyseye.com it has all the terminology you need to do more research.
+Robert Szasz If you could stick a microlens array over a super high res screen you could make live omni-directional "3D" images, the pixels would have to way smaller than an average screen. Maybe if you made a big version with golf ball sized lenses you could make a cloaking device for a building when seen from a few hundred meters away!
👍👍👍
Plz make a video on this pattern again that 2d lenticular x and y hexagonal one it so much intrusting I want to know more
How i can made effect like hp
Where can I buy a 2d array?
Can u help me make a hologram like hp
Hello, where can I purchase fly eye lenticular array? I've checked aliexpress and amazon and had no luck😢
Please let me know if you find it, I want some too!
We need much, _much_ higher resolutions in our screens so we can put microlens arrays in front of them and have proper autostereoscopic 3D screens. Samsung's 560 ppi 4K screen .... pfff, don't make me laugh ;)
The Nindendo DS has uses a lenticular lens for 3D but the resolution is somewhere between 320x240 and potato.
I'm putting my money on something like the CastAR system where each eye gets beamed its own active image. Then you don't need to calculate a whole world, just 2 view points.
Nick Moore I thought the 3DS uses a parallax barrier. But yeah, it would be nice to have something like this, with a good resolution, without the need for head-tracking. Now the issue of how we would produce the image data for such displays in real time is one I deliberately ignored in my original comment ;)
I've only used the 3DS a few times and it had that lenticular look, I'll have to find a teardown video of one.
Heh, a 360degree image * 4k resolution is getting into IMAX territory just to run your phone!
Nick Moore I've only been to an IMAX once but I saw pixels there, so I hope they do better than IMAX ;)
Since theaters switched to digital I noticed that there has been a serious drop in projection quality rather than an increase
The focus thing: Aperture and focal length, I suspect...?
It acts like a "real" object in that using a smaller aperture brings it into focus with the rest of the image. The light from the check mark really seems to come from an object that is not in the same plane as the cardboard backing.
Hmm; are they compound lenses?
(Are you still abroad?)
I'll see if I can dissect one to get a better idea of its shape. Yes, I'm still in New Zealand for a few more months. I have to keep my videos simple until I get back to "my lab."
I think your eyes and brain are fooling you when you think both the checkmarks and the "ok" are in focus at the same time. You see multiple layers so the brain knows those not in focus will be blurred and the brain will "hide" that from you. Try holding a hand out halfway between your eyes and the screen. If you don't try too hard both will look as if in focus, but if you close one eye (the most important part for depth information at that distance) you will see either the hand or screen is quite out of focus.
The other possibility: when looking at it, you were too far away from the hologram in relation to the "depth" of the hologram, so both layers really are (almost) in focus, but you were much closer with the camera.
As to why the layers really have depth information? Isn't that the whole point of the lenticular hologram? When focusing something in the hologram you are not focusing on the physical plane of the hologram at all, but your focus is in front or "behind" the hologram and the physical plane of the hologram is actually be a blurred mess. Instead of focusing a single point in a scene onto a single point on the retina, a single point in the scene makes a circle on the retina OR - and that's the important step here - a circle in the scene makes a single point on the retina (its perceived color being the average of all the colors in the circle). Now the cool thing is, the small lenses present a different "circle" for the same area depending on the direction (and the slightest offset can have a huge effect as you can see in your example with the lense). So on the retina or camera sensor you see sharp points. It's hard to explain without accurate drawings.
Parked
Lenticular effects are not holograms. You shouldn't perpetuate the misnomer.
Regular "1D" lenticular prints are not holograms but the HP one has almost all the qualities of a real hologram. It looks almost like a printed "Lytro" camera image.
+Nick Moore It doesn't matter if they look very similar. They are produced by different physical phenomena, so they are not the same.
These aren't holograms.