h a l f b a k e r yIf ever there was a time we needed a bowlologist, it's now.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Lenticular prints display a different image depending upon the angle you look at them.
To form a lenticular print, two images are interlaced and then overlayed with a lenticular lens screen.
The problem with lenticular printing is the need for a lenticular lens screen. It'd be good if the same
effect could be achieved without the need to overlay a screen.
I propose a simpler method of forming a lenticular effect. Basically this would involve an array of closely spaced coloured dimples pressed into a surface. The dimples would be coloured such that different images would be formed depending on the angle at which the surface is viewed. see illustration.
This could be manufactured with by colour debossing (the reverse of embossing).
Admittedly this is a pretty obvious invention, but I couldn't find an example on the internet.
illustration
http://imgur.com/a/d6m6c
[xaviergisz, Aug 21 2007, last modified Dec 13 2011]
Kind of like this
https://gfycat.com/gracioustheseeeve-art
[xaviergisz, Apr 23 2020]
[link]
|
| |
I've seen this with 2D arrays of embossed prisms, but not with dots. |
|
| |
they dimple out, not in, huh? that is essentially what i imagined when you described this idea. hard to believe it's not baked. needs trying. i was thinking if you colored each peg (dimple) differently on different sides of its dimple you would get a different look as you moved 180 around the perimeter of the art. means you could view art not just from in front or below, but all around, up, down, side to side... fascinating. |
|
| |
you will need a media that can be deformed sufficiently to make a dimple deep enough to allow multiple viewing angles which would mean some sort of plastic, also you would need some pretty small dimples(im thinking 1 dimple per pixel) Also what would it look like from strait on? if the dimples were hemispherical as opposed to cylindrical? |
|
| |
Another concern would be paralax errors depending on the viewing angle and distance. |
|
| |
Wouldn't a dome give more views because the convex arc would hide more angles? |
|
| |
All: While going through old ideas, something that's
usually lots of fun, I had to flag the second post
starting
with (???), please don't click on it. It's been replaced
by a creepy porn site. Notified the moderator. Not
idischler's fault, this sort of thing happens. |
|
| |
// creepy porn site//
When I clicked, i didn't look close enough to discern creepy. |
|
| |
Didn't look at it either, just closed the window, but any
porn site that pops up when I don't expect it is creepy. |
|
| |
Many years ago I typed in "Yahoo.com" or so I thought.
Left an O off or something. That was back in the age of
the "popup window storm" and a very graphic popup
would fill the screen, when I'd close it another, and
another. I was at work and had to reboot the damn
computer. |
|
| |
I'm not big on government interference with the web, but
I'd
support moving all pornography to an .XXX domain.
Consenting adults should be free to look at stuff made by
other consenting adults but people should be able to not
have that stuff on their computers either. Very easy to
have your computer block any .XXX site. I'd think the porn
industry themselves should get behind that. |
|
| |
Anyway, thanks moderator for taking it down. Hate to
sound prude but, well, sure you don't want that on your
site either. |
|
| |
Was almost tempted to go to the Wayback machine to see
what the link was originally, but thought.... naaa. Maybe
it WAS a porn link originally. LOL. |
|
| |
The filtering will only get better. Soon we will be able to live in a supplied bubble, not needing the knowledge of looking away because it's all got that personal algorithm touch. |
|
| |