They're not 3d, cockpouch.

...this guy's amazed at 10 year old QuickTime technology.

Why do we wind up with these lame Quicktime VR links on Fark so often? They even always call them 3D, because apparently the same sort of people who post links to decade old tech as if its new don't comprehend what 3D actually means.

If they actually did have depth data and you could view them stereoscopically in an immersive device, that'd probably be pretty compelling.

i laughed my ass off when i opened the moon panorama and the singing started.

I am no tinfoil hat guy but where are the stars in the moon photo?

chumboobler: "I am no tinfoil hat guy but where are the stars in the moon photo?"

Cameras don't work like human eyes. Strong local sources of light drown out faint distant ones. There are a number of experiments you can do with any camera that will demonstrate this effect.

Ask for a reasonable explanation and I shall receive.......Thanks Zamboro

chumboobler: I am no tinfoil hat guy but where are the stars in the moon photo?

They're not bright enough to show up at the exposure necessary for the sunlight lit lunar surface.

ok, i'm dizzy now.

off to play some FPS

Yeah, I'll be impressed when these things start allowing you to actually move the 'central' viewpoint around and look behind things previously obscured. Until then, *yawn*.

In no way, manner or form are these 3D.

/that is all

Panoramas from Mars.

farkin' amazing. To think that we'll have a permanent habitat there within my lifetime...

Motion?

Nope

3D?

Nope

Chick in the Niagara Falls shot taking a picture of, presumably, her man and her kid...

How you doin'?

Still, kinda neat. Sure beats actually having to travel to Niagara Falls. (Niagara on the Lake is nice, however.)

I got one of these of the inside of my pants. Everything looks much bigger. I like it.

I've seen this technology before, but I have to admit the one at Red Square is absolutely amazing.

Well, the objects pictured are three dimensional.

/Voting enabled

Lame. Didn't even work for me on Linux Ubuntu using firefox (and yes, I have quicktime/open quicktime). Also couldn't get it working on Mandriva usinga similar setup.

Or maybe it's working, but the technology is 12 years old??? I was expecting 3D sharks with friggin laser beams on the head that shoots me in the eyes.

And why are you guys enabling voting? I vote you for lamest of them all.

I submited this with a better picture

/Not really
//nice pictures, if it was still 1997

chumboobler: I am no tinfoil hat guy but where are the stars in the moon photo?

There are no stars in NASA's movie studio, dummy.

macker:I was expecting 3D sharks with friggin laser beams on the head that shoots me in the eyes.

Also wanted to see sharks with friggin laser beams along with a ridiculously slow dipping mechanism.

Zamboro
chumboobler: "I am no tinfoil hat guy but where are the stars in the moon photo?"

Cameras don't work like human eyes. Strong local sources of light drown out faint distant ones. There are a number of experiments you can do with any camera that will demonstrate this effect.

Like why there are no stars in the Moscow or Yokohama night shots either? Freaky :P

I remember in 1997 when NASA released a panorama of the Mars rover landing. That was so cool...11 years ago...

Quicktime? I'm not falling for that one again.

No quicktime.. rather still be able to use my computer after looking at the pic instead of having all the codecs screwed up, files hijacked and bloatware bloating...

/don't like quicktime if u didn't guess

The link says motion 3d and is neither. Here's one that
is motion at least,

Immersive Demos

Calling these 3d is just as lame as calling a UV reactive product "glow-in-the-dark."

chumboobler

Ask for a reasonable explanation and I shall receive.......Thanks Zamboro

A little more detail: any real camera lens scatters a small percentage of the light that hits it. When you take pictures of a brightly lit, sunny moonscape, the 2% or so of the light that the camera lens scatters is a lot brighter than the starlight.

Most people don't realize how dim starlight is and how much brighter sunlight is than it. Your pupils dilate, people! Try using a laser pointer outside on a sunny day sometime. You might not even be able to see it.

Zamboro: chumboobler: "I am no tinfoil hat guy but where are the stars in the moon photo?"

Cameras don't work like human eyes. Strong local sources of light drown out faint distant ones. There are a number of experiments you can do with any camera that will demonstrate this effect.

True that. Learning just how your camera sees the world will improve your pictures more than any glass.

But HDR images are an interesting attempt to overcome some of the limitations of digital photography.
Link (new window)

Times Square 2006 New Year - one word: awesome! (new window)

What is incredible is that this got greenlit.

Zamboro: Cameras don't work like human eyes. Strong local sources of light drown out faint distant ones.

Actually, human eyes and cameras are very similar -- this phenomenon is true of human eyes as well.

This is why they don't put observatories in big cities.

Wow, you guys are extreme sour-pusses. Yes, it's old tech. Still freaking cool to see hi-res panoramic shots of places I'll likely never see in real life.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20040318a/07-JG-01-pan-A074R 1.jpg

TheMega: No quicktime.. rather still be able to use my computer after looking at the pic instead of having all the codecs screwed up, files hijacked and bloatware bloating...

/don't like quicktime if u didn't guess

You know, if you knew what you were doing, you could install Quicktime without any of these things happening.

1) Requires quicktime
2) Link has a link "requires quicktime" that goes to Apple's page
3) Apple's page is for MacOS quicktime, Windows version not found
4) After searching, Windows version is 23MB
5) Also requires XP SP2.

Why would quicktime be available on XP SP2 at a minimum? Is apple trying to foist Microsoft upgrades on me so that I abandon Windows and run Apple stuff instead?

JC, I hate quicktime. Always have and it keeps getting worse.

Xenu's Giant Pink Replicock: Why would quicktime be available on XP SP2 at a minimum? Is apple trying to foist Microsoft upgrades on me so that I abandon Windows and run Apple stuff instead?

Actually, it is because no reasonable person would ever run XP without SP2.

also known as instant motion sickness machines.

that moon one was pretty shweet

The Red Square one gave me flashbacks to 'Raid over Moscow' for the C64

I guess I'm not leet enough to yawn about how lame these are and how I've already seen them 85.6 times.

So thanks subby. I thought they were cool.

I think a friend of mine was doing this as a noob back in 1999 in Florence Oregon. I think he did about a dozen or more for the Florence tourist industry. It was called IPIX then and used a browser plugin.
Link (new window)

The only new thing I noticed here was the loading grid. It kinda reminded me of the holodeck from Star Treck.

Wow, that's neat. You can almost see the alien moon bases in that Apollo panorama.

Quicktime?

Will not install.

Do not want.

NIAGARA FALLS! Slowly I turn. Inch by inch. Pixel by pixel.

rkane1

The Red Square one gave me flashbacks to 'Raid over Moscow' for the C64

^^^
this!

Why are links that appear on Digg.com appearing on Fark.com almost simultaneously?

Thanks, subby. I always love being reminded of how I've gone nowhere in this world and probably won't see many of these places in person.

/bipolar

cubsfan07:

Thanks, subby. I always love being reminded of how I've gone nowhere in this world and probably won't see many of these places in person

Hey c'mon, don't give up and drown in self pity; try and invent ways to add adventure to our life, a little imagination can get a lot done.

omg they should use this for porn