Talk:Integral imaging

Indeed, holographic lens techniques have been demonstrated. http://spie.org/x8756.xml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible to use holographic lenses for this? Trekphiler 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it is widely held that integral comes from integration. But I have just translated Lippmann's articles from the French and I have found no evidence for this. My read is that he means integral as in complete, entirety. Fredo Durand, February 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredodurand (talk • contribs) 01:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lenticular Autostereoscopy?

It may be advisable to create a Lenticular Autostereoscopy article and merge Integral Imaging and Lenticular Printing into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not merge. With integral imaging, the images presented to the eye by each of the lenslets in an array 'integrate' to form a whole view. If the lenslets are so small to be considered delivering a single pixel to the viewer, an integral image display becomes a plenoptic display. If the lenslets are cylindrical and also so small as to be considered delivering a line of pixels, the display becomes a lenticular.

Lenticualr autostereoscopy presents a 3D view if viewed vertically (eg along the line of the lenticle array, typically right/left) but not if viewed horizontally (typically up/down).

Integral imaging autostereoscopy presents a 3D view along both right/left and up/down orientation. 72.69.161.2 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little more "In Depth" information!!!

I have been looking for information on this topic for ages thank you so much for the clear explanation. You can't believe how grateful I am :)

But I still have one more question. You talk about focussing on fore and background images. I understand that the lens in front of a micro image selects a particular pixel in a microimage based on the viewing direction and how that causes the color of the lens to change as you move passed it.. However... I don't understand how this fools accommodation. Wouldn't that require another lens in front of that microimage pixel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.231.232 (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If images of a very distant point of light such as a star are photographed with a plane lens array, the position of that point in each image, relative to the axis of its associated lens, will be the same, so when the finished image is lit and viewed through a correctly aligned array, all the pencils of light representing that point will be parallel as they proceed from the lenses toward the viewer. If the lenses are small enough, so that several pencils of light enter the pupil of the eye, they can be focused or unfocused just like the parallel rays entering the eye from an actual very distant point. If the point photographed was near the plate, the pencils of light will be divergent, reproducing the original optical geometry, and will require the same accommodation for sharpest focus as divergent rays actually coming from a point at that distance.

If, however, the images have not been rectified—in effect, each image separately rotated 180 degrees around its center but kept in the same location in the array—then the pencils representing a near point will be convergent when they exit the lenses and come to a focus on the viewer's side of the array, because that is where the point actually was in relation to the lenses and image-recording medium when it was photographed. This results in a pseudoscopic image, in which objects appear to be hollow molds of themselves and nearby things seem to be embedded in more distant ones. Objects at infinity, however, will still appear to be at infinity, because the rays will be parallel regardless of whether the images have been rectified or not. This was one of the stumbling blocks hindering the development of integral imaging using traditional photographic means—the only practical ways of rectifying such a large number of images were to re-photograph the pseudoscopic original using a second array, or to view it through supplementary inverting arrays, which inevitably resulted in a serious reduction of the already low image quality possible with lenses simple enough to make manufacturing such arrays practical.

Integral images can perhaps best be understood by considering them in their most elementary form, in which the "lenses" in the array are simply pinholes. In fact, one advantage of actually using an array of pinholes for demonstration purposes is that the rectification is not required, because by viewing the illuminated pinholes through the images (assuming images on a transparent support), instead of the other way around, the original geometry is preserved and the integral image is not pseudoscopic. AVarchaeologist (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: ftp://ftp.umiacs.umd.edu/pub/aagrawal/HistoryOfIntegralImaging/Integral_History.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holography

What is the difference between integral imaging and holography? Rosedaler (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]