An Interview with Eugene Nemirovsky, Artist and Developer of “Orchids in LifeDimensions-4D”

Mr. Nemirovsky was born in Ukraine (Soviet Union) and immigrated to the United States in 1991 and now resides in the city of Palm Beach, FL.  He was educated at the prestigious Aviation Engineering Institute, the same institute that developed the Russian space technology.  Eugene's parents and grandparents were professional photographers, which sparked his interest from early childhood.  He began to seriously study 3-D imaging in 1970 and produced his first 3-D photograph in 1981.  He has won several photography competitions in Russia, for black and white and underground photography, and was awarded the National Grand Prize for his photographs of deep underground caves.

Eugene has a total of 38 years experience in research, development and utilization of 3-D imaging.  This research includes detailed self-education and experience in almost all existing photo technologies.  These ranged from old photographs on glass and fabric up to the latest holograms in air.  Also, significant efforts were devoted to the world's 3-D market history.

Mr. Nemirovsky is author of a number of worldwide-patented inventions, two discoveries in optics and one discovery in mathematics.  Eugene has learned the fine details of the over 90 different 3-D photographic techniques found throughout the world. In 1990 Eugene proved yet another unique 3-D technology by creating a true-to-life 3-D photograph using only some existing footage of a documentary movie film of famous Latvian poet, Janis Rainis, who died before WW2.  The Latvian people were thrilled to see their legendary poet in this 3-D picture just as he was in real life.  The 3-D photograph was requested by the journal "Inventor and Improver," to be displayed in the Russian Inventors Museum, in Moscow.

Eugene's technical expertise has allowed him to make an easy task of the complex transition from purely film-based 3-D photography to digital 3-D recording and printing while increasing the ability to produce exceptionally high quality images.  In 2003 Eugene created, the first in history, a digital 3-D volumetric image of The Holy Shroud of Turin and in the process proved that the Shroud image is indeed genuine and not a painted fake, though it offers no proof of who the individual was.

 Mr. Nemirovsky now uses his multiple talents to produce unique and spectacular LifeDimensions-4D^TM (LD-4D^TM) Digital Images of people and products using his newly-invented digital 4-D camera.  What is so remarkable about these images is that in an LD-4D full color portrait, for instance, the continuous depth of the image (dimension Z) is proportionally equal to the width (dimension X) and to the height (dimension Y) to which he has now added a 4^th Dimension so that it appears just as if the person is sitting there in the frame.  It is our belief that this has never before been accomplished in the history of photography. 

Eugene Nemirovsky: How did you get started in 3-D and 4-D photography?

Let me explain how I came to this.  In 1970, I was already an amateur photographer of some distinction.  I was a member of a cave exploration club.  I photographed a lot underground in deep caverns and eventually won a national prize for my underground photographs and also won a number of other photo competitions.  This all happened later but in 1970 I walked into a photographic store in Ukraine and found a 3-D, three lens camera that was very inexpensive.  One of the lenses was for viewing and focusing, like a Rolleiflex, and it took 120 film.  The lenses were very sharp and the box said it could make 3-D pictures.  I didn’t really believe it but it was very inexpensive so I bought this camera.  I made my first pictures and I put them in front of the stereoscopic device that came with the camera and when I viewed them, they were a mess!  At first I couldn’t understand it and I thought, “Well, I didn’t believe it in the first place and now it’s not happening, so I was right!”  But then I read the instructions (always a good idea!) and the instructions said you had to put the left image to the right and the right image to the left, so I switched the pictures and I was shocked!  Oh my god, when I saw this great depth and 3-Dimensionality, I was really shocked. 

Did you then go to school to learn more about 3-D photography?

Actually, there was no 3-D course available in any school so from that moment on I started reading 3-D literature, which fortunately was very available in the Soviet Union: books, articles and encyclopedias, anything I could get my hands on, until I basically educated myself.  I found that a lot of science exists about 3-D imaging, holography, lenticular photography, lenticular movies, etc. but it’s almost entirely theoretical.  Meanwhile, I kept on making stereoscopic pictures graduating to using color slides and continuing to photograph underground in the deep natural caverns where there was absolutely no ambient light.   I also built a stereoscopic projector so I could show the 3-D pictures on the wall.  Of course, the wall was not the right reflective surface and I ended up building a special screen.  Next, naturally, I had to make about 50 pairs of stereo goggles for the members of my cave club so as a group we could have fun viewing 3-D pictures of stalagmites and stalactites, which are very 3-Dimensional, inside those huge, dark caves.  That was my first and very exciting experience with 3-D photography.

When did you become interested in lenticular technology?

Quite early on. I became fascinated with the achievements in lenticular technology, which was actually invented in the Soviet Union just before World War II.  Later, this technology was sold to other countries.  I learned a lot about lenticular processes, especially about all the geometry that turned out to be very, very complex.  I learned the whole theory and the mathematics behind the process and I thought all I needed then was the lenticular material itself, which was totally unavailable to me.  However, my understanding was that I would be able to create 3-D pictures, maybe by the next week, if I just had a lenticular screen except, of course, that I had to design and built a suitable camera.  Nothing daunted, I set about making my own lenticular screens but when I finally created them my next step seemed simple. I thought: now just make a suitable 3-D picture.  OK, but how do I print it?  Then I had to build my own special printer for my 3-D negatives.  When I carefully placed the lenticular screen on top of the printed image and oh, was I frustrated!  What I saw was absolutely indescribable: it was nothing, it was a mess!  Finally I was able to make some pictures that had the Z dimension but I couldn't put the lenticular material and the image together. I could align them briefly but I couldn't make them stay aligned. Besides, the image was anything but beautiful but it was 3 dimensional, to be sure, but it sure had problems, a whole flock of problems.  3-Dimensional, or worse, 4-Dimensional images are problem-creating winners!

Did you learn anything from those early difficulties?

I had made mistakes, of course, but I didn’t have a clue about the many problems that had revealed themselves because I never had done it before.  I did learn one very important lesson: you don’t know anything about any complex process unless you have done it for yourself, from A to Z, or in this case, from X, Y to Z!  The reality is that you don’t know what you don’t know until you try to do it yourself!

How long did it take you to finally succeed?

Eventually, I overcame those problems that I saw at that time, only to discover still more problems that had to be overcome and then there were still more problems.  It was like fence after fence after fence after fence!  You climb over one and there is another one and another one and so no.  Every time I thought I already knew everything and knew what was going to happen next, it was only to discover another unforeseen problem.  It took no less than 11 years for me to resolve all the problems before I finally made my first 3-Dimensional portrait in 1981.

So did you have to buy another camera to use with your lenticular screen?

Are you kidding?  There were none!  After making my first 3-D portrait using a camera I had to build myself, using lenticular material I had to make myself, a printer that I had to design and build myself, all to use with a technological process I had to reinvent myself because the several existing ones existed only in theory and didn’t work in the real world, I started to consider how 11 years before I had thought if I just had lenticular material, I could make lenticular pictures!  Naturally, I thought I would make them next week but that ‘next week’ happened only 11 years later.  It would be a very useful lesson for anyone who has never made a 3-D lenticular picture (not to mention a 4-D with an infinite number of views!) to make one themselves, even a small one, maybe business card size, just to get some experience with the process.  It would be a good idea to try it before stating categorically, “Oh, I know what that is…” and then judge professionals in this field from a position of a photographer of flat pictures, no matter how excellent a flat photographer they may be.

In some of your 4-D pictures there are areas of soft focus.  Can you explain?

This is another story.  I would like to put particularly emphasis on judging of the quality of my images and tell you that account must be taken of how everything was created.  For instance, there are some areas of soft focus but in 3-D or 4-D imaging, where there is depth, it cannot be 100% sharp because if you pay close attention, you will notice our eyes naturally don’t see everything sharp.  For instance, when we are looking at a close object, it will be in sharp focus while objects further away will be blurry.  On the other hand, when we refocus our eyes on the more distant objects, the one that is close will become blurry.  This effect is known as the depth of focus and eyes accommodation. These effects are more pronounced the closer we are to an object.  Art is rarely intended to be a perfect replication of reality and in almost every case the personality of the artist is evident in their work.  Viewers shouldn’t and most don’t, accept 4-D images in the same terms as they apply to flat photographs.  They are totally different forms of art as are the works of, for instance, Rembrandt and Picasso, though they both used paint and canvas.

When photo portraits were first made, no-one complained if the ears were not in sharp focus.  That was a natural depth of focus limitation of the process that they had back then but still wonderful portraits were made.  4-D photography also may not be perfect but as a judging professional I would pay attention to what has been achieved rather than what yet has to be accomplished.  Besides, I have achieved a very high level of sharpness as compared to what others have ever achieved.  Unless you are familiar with these other achievements in the field around the world, it becomes very difficult to make any serious comparisons. 

How should 4-D pictures be judged?

I would like to say one more important thing and it is very important because it puts photographers of flat pictures and 4-D image producers, and I am one of them, in unequal positions.  Professional photographers and serious amateurs who produce flat images have the distinct advantage that Nikon made for them great cameras; Epson made for them great printers, paper and inks; Adobe made for them Photoshop… who else?  Microsoft made all kinds of software; and Apple made for them great computers, so all they have to do is point and shoot then put it all together!  In many cases they don’t even do all that: they just send their negatives or digital recordings to a lab!  If they are not great photographers, they can point and shoot documentaries and at least you can see something in the picture.  In 4-Dimension imaging, unless you put everything together absolutely right, you’ll see nothing!  All you make is a lot of expensive scrap and wasted many hours of time.  And to make my pictures, I had to build my own cameras myself, and calculate lenticular optical design myself.  I even used to produce my own lenticular material myself!  I had to develop a complete technology from A to Z.  I have made no less than five 3-D or 4-D cameras and several printers myself because none existed off the shelf that would address the different aspects of this art.  Flat photography and 3-D and 4-D imaging are like two different planets and small size 4-D and large size 4-D (16 x 20 inches and up) are like two different galaxies.

So are there any persons who would be qualified to judge?

Yes, sure.  One of the few people who have this universal kind of experience is Ken Conley, Director of Micro Lens Technology, Inc., the foremost manufacturer of lenticular materials.  Ken has seen all kinds of efforts all around the world.   Ken wrote, “I recognize Eugene as one of, if not the leading expert in 3-D photography.  I feel I can make the above statements from my 35 years experience in designing Lenticular sheets and supplying Lenticular sheets to users in most of the world.”  So anyone placed in a position to judge 4-D imaging should consider not only the result but what it took to accomplish this result and what standards have been met.  I had to discover two laws of optics I patented later that nobody else knew so that I could resolve one of the most difficult problems in this type of photography.  That’s how difficult it was. Happily, most viewers have little or no interest in how it’s all done; they just appreciate the beauty of the art. 

What reaction have you gotten from other photographers?

And after all this, someone comes along and says, “Oh, lenticular photography?  I know all about it.”  I have met many many photographers who gave me very positive feedback about the images that I have created and even indicated their interest in learning my process. It's NOT REALLY THAT DIFFICULT if you know it.  Some have already  joined our 4-D Association to learn how.  However, a very few others revealed their lack of understanding.  Typically, they just said “I don’t like it.”  It’s a story that repeats itself with almost every popular invention in the world that everybody knows and uses and we can’t imagine living without those inventions today.  For example, color photography was originally rejected by many photographers – photographers yes, but not the end users who clicked away with their Kodaks!  The founder of the Xerox Company was told many times by executives in the beginning, “Why would we need to make copies?  We have carbon paper!”  Cars?  Many said cars would never replace the horse!  Fortunately, the actual end users never rejected these innovations – they just went ahead and used them anyway.

In simple terms, can you compare 4-D imaging to regular flat photography?

In flat photography, you have to figure composition, which is an art in and of itself, but technically you have to consider the vantage point, you have to consider the distance, you have to consider zooming, exposure time, diaphragm; these are basic things you have to consider but there is not much left in the flat photographing process itself.  Then before you print you can alter the image whatever way you want either on photosensitive media or you can use Photoshop or some other kind of software and alter the image as you wish (or are able).  However, the same process exists in four dimensional imaging but for this kind of technology, all of the long list above would represent only about 10% of the 4-D process. With flat photography, the same list would represent 100% or close to it.  All the other 90% in 4-D imaging is really optical engineering.  If you look at it in mathematical terms, you can see that the equation for 4-D has way more unknown members.  And without special knowledge or experience, flat-type photographers can only think they know what the unknowns are but unless they try to do at least one piece, they will have no idea what is missing.  And even making just one piece, even a good one, they still don’t have anything yet. This is because there is a variety of four dimensional techniques that can be employed and in each particular case I may use a different technique, a different approach.  One type of subject or situation may require a particular type of equipment but the same equipment and approach cannot necessarily be employed for different subjects or conditions.  In every case, all the unknowns in the equation have to be discovered and resolved so that the equation can be completed with knowns before the next step can be taken. 

I suppose you eventually found a source for lenticular material?

At the time when I produced my first lenticular screen, I created what I believe were the first 3-D portraits that could be hung on a wall and you didn’t have to use funny goggles.  Later on I made many of them on my lenticular material that I created, would you believe, out of regular window glass.  They were very fragile but many people still have them – I suppose they should be museum pieces today.  My dream at that time was to be able to get my hands on lenticular material of much better quality that I knew existed but to me was unavailable. I didn’t even know who made it or where it was manufactured, possibly in Japan.  When we came to the United States from Russia, we could not choose where to go.  We were sent by the immigration agencies and we were placed in Charlotte, North Carolina.  What a surprise to discover that our new home was just a few blocks away from MicroLens, Inc., a company that had invented a process to make high quality lenticular material!  It looked like it was much more that a happy coincidence: I have to believe it was meant to be. After my experience with designing and making my own lenticular material, I have to confess that to invent a practical technology to manufacture lenticular material and to launch it on the production scale of MicroLens is only slightly easier then launching a spaceship. Trust me.  It's thanks to a great inventor, Ken Conley, that we have this marvel available to us today.

That is amazing but now you finally succeeded, right?

Yes but it still didn’t happen overnight.  Since my very first picture that I made on lenticular media, I was always thinking about the imperfections of those images.  Step by step, I developed higher technology and also better visual stereo or 3-Dimensionality.  As I developed more sophisticated technology, on the way I had to build no less that five cameras and several printers by myself to serve my intended purposes at that time.  Initially, I had no clue that I would exceed the then existing theories of 3-Dimensionality and develop my own General Theory of Three Dimensionality which involves my new discovery in mathematics, especially applicable to the development of 3-Dimensional television and other 3-Dimension and 4-Dimension practical and much needed systems.

These systems, then, are typically outside the realm of even 4-D photography?

Yes but that’s another story. (Click here if you have more than a passing interest.) This sophisticated technology is based on two new discoveries of mine in the science of optics, which has led to the very high resolution that is so well illustrated in my series, Orchids in LifeDimensions-4D digital images.  My discoveries have been disclosed in patents now in 26 countries, including the United States.  As a matter of fact, the patent in the United States turned out to be the longest and most complete 3-D imaging patent in the world. 

Much of your early work was film-based.  When did you go digital?

Eventually, photographic technology evolved from film-based to digital-electronic and I decided to make the same transition in 3-D and 4-D.  And guess what – I had to design and build one more 4-D camera by myself, this time digital-electronic based, because once again I was far ahead of the industry.  More recently, I have invented a single lens 3-D and 4-D digital camera as well as 4-D digital real time display for TV screens and computer monitors. 

Are you serious, Eugene?  4-D TV & PC?

Very serious.  However, development of this camera and associated equipment requires significant investment and additional electronics technology that really, this time, I cannot handle by myself.  That is why we need additional participation.  Here is something very interesting to think about.  Despite the huge technology advancements of the 20^th and 21^st Centuries, that have made it possible for people to have walked on the moon and in space, 3- and 4-Dimensional photo technologies are still difficult to crack and we would really appreciate everybody who could help us to continue this research so we can develop more and more sophisticated applications.  If you would like to make a contribution, not only financial but also in expertise, to help us in this very challenging research and development, please do so by clicking the link below.  It will bring you to the technical pages that will enable you to start making your own 3D and 4D pictures.

Please click to CONTRIBUTE HERE.  

Have you ever thought about sharing your expertise with others?

Well, yes.  That’s what I was talking about just now.  If we are going to have additional participation, those participants have to come up to speed to where we are today at Creative Rays, Inc. so that we can move on from there.  To do so we are forming a 4D Association and we invite all contributors to join. 

Any last comments for the readers?

NEW TECHNOLOGIES ORCHIDS GALLERY 3D&4D TECHNOLOGIES

Copyright 2007 Creative Rays. All rights reserved.
ynemirov@bellsouth.net