Cover Coincidence?

My wife and I just returned home after a two week cross-country vacation (more on that another time) and that means yesterday we got to enjoy the thrill of picking up all our held mail at the post office. It really was kind of a thrill to search for the items worth saving amidst all the catalogs, bills, and junk mail: a couple checks, magazines, some bank statements.

But it was one of the magazines that made me pause. I subscribe to Esquire, and received the August issue amidst this new pile. As soon as I saw the cover photo, my first thought was, "hang on a sec, don't I already have this issue?" Here's what the cover looks like:

Then I realized where I'd seen this image before. I also subscribe to Wired magazine, and had just received their July issue before we left for our trip. Here's what that cover looks like:

Very much the same, huh? Not just the camera's low angle, but also the dark suit, the left-shoulder-forward pose, and the soft highlight halo in the background. They look like they were taken the same day by the same person. Could it be?

Turns out, yes, they are taken by the same photographer, and the name is Platon. I looked him up and he's actually done quite a few covers for Esquire in the past, with a similar portrait style. You can check out his website (www.platonphoto.com), which includes his bio and portfolio.

Now, I'm sure this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Certainly, the magazines have different publishers (Esquire = Hearst, Wired = Condé Nast), so you can't blame it on internal miscommunication. And the issues technically have publication dates a month apart. But go to your local newsstand, and I bet you'll see both of these issues currently on the rack. I wonder if this kind of thing really bugs the magazines' editors? Or does it happen more then I've realized?

I might be the only guy who was confused by this, but I hope I'm not the only one who's enjoying it...

IDEA: More 3D in the Future?

Okay, so recently I came across some homemade 3D images that were created out of footage shot from a CNN helicopter circling over the WTC on 9/11:

http://www.ironicsans.com/2006/05/911_in_3d.html#more

While it's kind of unfortunate that the images are of a sad subject, the technique is intriguing. The creator used near-consecutive frames as the camera moved horizontally to recreate L-eye and R-eye views, and the effect is realistic. He even posted versions that can be seen in 3D without the glasses (crossing your eyes blends the separate images into a floating 3D image). You might have seen this linked to in other blogs, and they deserve viewing because they are interesting and compelling in their own way.

But they got me thinking...

I mean, now that there is such an overwhelming amount of video footage on the internet, how many more of these could be made once more people learn about the idea? How about someone developing instructions for all of us to find scenes in our our own old home video footage to turn into 3D?

A simple search will find you several different websites that show how to make 3D images with your digital still camera using basic editing software and often with careful planning of how you shoot your image. But wouldn't it be great to go back to old videos of your children, or maybe even B&W home movies your grandparents took, and find a scene that can be brought into 3D?

And as the tools become more powerful in the coming years, who's to say we couldn't see a day when I find that brief shot that pans across the family posing in front of the Grand Canyon, I render the clip into a 3D still image, and send that to a 3D printer that 5 mintues later spits out a small sculpture for my desk of me and the kids at the Grand Canyon. In full color. Because framed photos are so 2008.

Oh, and let me email you the file so you can print one for your desk, too.

Anybody gonna make that happen soon? Let me know...