Author | Thread |
|
03/20/2012 11:29:25 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
@s[user]tphq[/user]: I'm not familiar with reversing the position you mentioned -- all the pictures I've seen (and made) print the right-foot image on the right, and the left on the left -- the camera is a monocular recorder receiving the light in place of each eye.
There are complex neurological anatomical arrangements in how the brain receives signals from each lateral hemisphere of the retina, but I don't think that component of the visual mechanism applies to this technique. |
side by side 3D pictures come in 2 formats.. parallel and crossview.. parallel ones have the left and rght pictures in the correct positions, crossview ones have them reversed and , in my opinion, produce a more realistic depth than parallel ones.. parallel viewing is also used for pictures like the magic eye ones that appear to be patterns with hidden shapes and depth. This requires you to let your eyes go relaxed like and focus past the viewing picture as if trying to see through it, beyond.. has a similar effect to the crossview but as i say, in my opinion, not as good for depth and clarity.
here is a quote from a site.. "when some stereo 3D images are presented for cross eye viewing they are labeled as such, because their left and right frames are reversed as opposed to normally the frame for the left eye being on the left and the right one on the right."
Source site Website source for quote
Some people find it uncomfortable but this tends to become easier with practise.
Message edited by author 2012-03-20 15:30:28.
|
|
|
03/20/2012 11:32:47 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by weheh: @stphq -- Take a look at this.
//yelnick.typepad.com/yelnick/2010/10/3-things-to-know-about-3dtv.html
I think you're right it won't work with the stereogram images posted so far, but with the right setup, it could be very effective to use the animated gif approach. |
Ah I see what you mean but i personally wouldn't like that.. constant flickering and unable to be printed as it is an animation eh..
|
|
|
03/20/2012 11:44:34 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by stphq: side by side 3D pictures come in 2 formats.. parallel and crossview.. parallel ones have the left and rght pictures in the correct positions, crossview ones have them reversed and , in my opinion, produce a more realistic depth than parallel ones... |
I see (sic), thanks ... seems like the reversed ones are the only way it would work for online viewing. I'll try switching mine around and see if I can see them on-screen. |
|
|
03/20/2012 01:02:34 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by GeneralE: Originally posted by stphq: side by side 3D pictures come in 2 formats.. parallel and crossview.. parallel ones have the left and rght pictures in the correct positions, crossview ones have them reversed and , in my opinion, produce a more realistic depth than parallel ones... |
I see (sic), thanks ... seems like the reversed ones are the only way it would work for online viewing. I'll try switching mine around and see if I can see them on-screen. |
Parallel works online also, just like i say try to make your eyes go relaxed, lazy almost so your focal distance is behind the picture your viewing which makes the pictures overlap very like cross viewing.. i just prefer cross view images as i really do think the depth is more realistic.. also use this program (its free) to load up the left and right images, you can align them with the auto align and also swap them round to see what works best and then save out as a side by side single image... it also lets you add a fuzzy/faded black border to each image which i think helps with the overall end result..
Stereo Photo Maker
That software will also let you use your 2 taken photos to create an anaglyph for those red/cyan glasses.. though i think those pale in comparision to cross viewings full colour 3D effect.
|
|
|
03/20/2012 01:17:38 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by weheh: These are all very cool. But doesn't it really hurt your eyes to look at them? Mine get sore after just a few seconds.
|
The very first time I looked at those, I found it quite hard and a bit uncomfortable. Then I got the hang of it. I can now get them instantly and look as long as I want.
I LOVE looking at them, at least the ones that are well done because they DON'T hurt :-) |
|
|
03/20/2012 01:22:35 PM · #31 |
i love them also and can view for ages wihtout it being uncomfortable.. its really neat what the human mind can create with a little nudge eh lol
|
|
|
03/20/2012 02:01:52 PM · #32 |
I love these 3D views too and find it much easier to view the cross eyed variety than the parallel ones.
stphq, thanks for the explanation (which makes perfect sense, since I do know that the view from our eyes gets reversed in normal sight), I have made the mistake, soon rectified, of placing the images the wrong way around, and I got background objects floating around in front of foreground ones - a very strange and somewhat uncomfortable sensation. My shooting method is moving the camera from one eye to the other - seems to work okay but next time I'll try the 'cha cha'.
We have somewhere an old sterioscope inherited from my father-in-law so I'll have to dig it out and try what GeneralE does with his - that would be really cool.
|
|
|
03/20/2012 02:16:48 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by jomari: We have somewhere an old sterioscope inherited from my father-in-law so I'll have to dig it out and try what GeneralE does with his - that would be really cool. |
I'd love to have one of those -- the modern reproductions run about $120, though there are newer types as cheap as $2-5.
I think the versions of the pictures I posted are full-sized for a 4x6 print to use in such a stereoscope -- you are welcome to download them to try out.
FWIW, Brian May, astrophysicist and lead guitarist of the band Queen recently co-authored a book (A Villiage Lost And Found) which reproduces and annotates a set of 150 or so stereo photos from 1850's England -- the book includes a folding stereoscope he designed. You can get more info here. |
|
|
03/20/2012 02:55:12 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE: Originally posted by jomari: We have somewhere an old sterioscope inherited from my father-in-law so I'll have to dig it out and try what GeneralE does with his - that would be really cool. |
I'd love to have one of those -- the modern reproductions run about $120, though there are newer types as cheap as $2-5.
I think the versions of the pictures I posted are full-sized for a 4x6 print to use in such a stereoscope -- you are welcome to download them to try out.
FWIW, Brian May, astrophysicist and lead guitarist of the band Queen recently co-authored a book (A Villiage Lost And Found) which reproduces and annotates a set of 150 or so stereo photos from 1850's England -- the book includes a folding stereoscope he designed. You can get more info here. |
Thank you for that fascinating link.
I just took a look at your stereos and found that if I view them cross eyed they are inverted. I wasn't able to achieve the parallel 'look through' method. I just don't find that that comes as easily to me. I don't know (yet) which orientation is needed for the stereoscope.
|
|
|
03/25/2012 11:32:54 PM · #35 |
I was just looking at January's National Geographic again - at the article about twins. Several of the photos of identical twins work as stereographs, even the one on the front cover where they aren't really aligned. Try it out if you have that issue.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/15/2025 10:11:20 AM EDT.