| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/27/2007 11:19:35 AM · #1 |
| Take two photos of the same subject and display them side-by-side. The camera should be moved a few inches left or right between photos, to obtain the slight differences to allow for stereo viewing. I would suggest allowing a larger (at least wider) file submission dimension. Both photos must be taken with the same camera, not two placed side-by-side. |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 03:06:52 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 03:08:36 PM · #3 |
I have tried this over and over and still can't get it to work. I must be stoopid.
My eyes keep readjusting.
Message edited by author 2007-12-27 15:10:18.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2007 03:10:06 PM · #4 |
Why require the same camera? If ya got it, use it. :-)
|
|
|
|
12/27/2007 03:23:36 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Why require the same camera? If ya got it, use it. :-) |
In the interest of fairness. It wouldn't take much consideration of your composition using two cameras at the same time. |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 03:26:42 PM · #6 |
But, in the interest of fairness, it was seriously limit us people that shoot people or animals :-D
|
|
|
|
12/27/2007 03:37:53 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
But, in the interest of fairness, it was seriously limit us people that shoot people or animals :-D |
Know a good taxidermist? ;-D |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 03:42:54 PM · #8 |
I live in Alabama, what do you think? LOL
|
|
|
|
12/27/2007 03:50:41 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I live in Alabama, what do you think? LOL |
LMAO! |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 04:34:08 PM · #10 |
This is used a lot in Geology to study rock patterns, formations and such.
The thing is, you DO NOT need to take two different photos, or move the camera position to the left or right. You can get the same effect with using a single photo.
The trick lays in how it is viewed. I guess I just have a nack for crossing my eyes or something because I have always found it simple to do. There are lots of viewers to accomplish this same thing though.
Also, I do believe this subject has been covered in the past, just don't think it was called 'stereo photos' but something else. I forgets easy.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2007 05:21:36 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
The thing is, you DO NOT need to take two different photos, or move the camera position to the left or right. You can get the same effect with using a single photo. |
If you don't have two viewpoints, you don't have any stereo information, and therefore no depth, other than distance cues. Any "stereo" viewing of a single frame is not true stereo, any more than "stereo reconstructions" of monaural sound recordings are stereo records.
for a wealth of information on stereo imaging, go here. |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 05:27:17 PM · #12 |
Ooooohhh, I adore those stereograms, I'd love to see a whole challenge full of them!!!
One of these days I'll have to get hubby to rig something up for the tripod to make them easier to do.
Here is one of my own (it was my first attempt ever):
 |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 05:33:01 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Ooooohhh, I adore those stereograms |
I really enjoy doing them, and seeing ones that are well-done. I've found that relatively few people are able to look cross-eyed and get the stereo view without help from a viewing device. Some folks have an easier time viewing "wall-eyed" stereograms. I personally can't view the wall-eyed ones, but have no problems with cross-eyed stereograms.
I'd love to see a challenge, but we'd probably have to define whether they were to be "wall-eyed" or "cross-eyed" otherwise by the end of voting none of us would know which way to look! |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 05:51:04 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by littlegett:
The thing is, you DO NOT need to take two different photos, or move the camera position to the left or right. You can get the same effect with using a single photo. |
If you don't have two viewpoints, you don't have any stereo information, and therefore no depth, other than distance cues. Any "stereo" viewing of a single frame is not true stereo, any more than "stereo reconstructions" of monaural sound recordings are stereo records.
for a wealth of information on stereo imaging, go here. |
Then that just means I am an oddity, cause I can do it with identical images.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2007 05:54:48 PM · #15 |
Man, I would have SUCH a headache from viewing a whole challenge of those!! Well, unless I could figure a way to rig my stereoscope...
And Beetle, well done! :) |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 06:16:35 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Then that just means I am an oddity, cause I can do it with identical images. |
Nope, you're not an oddity :-)
Two identical images *do* give a mild illusion of increased depth, but it's just that, an illusion based on distance cues (size, perspective). True 3D is something else again.
Edit for typo
Message edited by author 2007-12-27 21:13:03. |
|
|
|
03/11/2012 01:14:56 PM · #17 |
I am bumping this thread because I think it's a good challenge suggestion!
Let's loosen the same-camera restriction, make it a "cross-eyed" stereogram and go for it! |
|
|
|
03/11/2012 01:46:38 PM · #18 |
I've made a few stereo prints set up to print on a regular 4x6.
They really work best printed and viewed with a stereoscopic viewer -- it would be really hard to do it on-screen; though there are some viewers designed for viewing on-screen images, but I think a little pricey for our purposes. |
|
|
|
03/11/2012 05:40:19 PM · #19 |
Ugh.... I just realized I already gave my 10 cents worth on this one...... years ago LOL.
But hey.... I'd still like to look through a bunch of them, anyway :-)
Message edited by author 2012-03-11 18:35:43. |
|
|
|
03/11/2012 06:14:56 PM · #20 |
I'd love to do this.
Here's a couple that I've done. Probably vertical shots work more easily because the spread isn't as great. But these do work. The rocks one takes a bit more eye adjustment than the flower.
Message edited by author 2012-03-11 18:16:00.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2012 02:06:25 PM · #21 |
Love doing these pics, takes a bit of practise using the cha-cha method with one camera but i think i'm getting the knack of it.. Its good to get a routine to save getting confused.. I take the right hand photo first with my weight shifted to my right foot as i take the photo, then i shift my wieght to the left foot, this is enough to shift the camera and keep the same framing and enough difference to respresent each eyes view. When I get to putting the 2 images together I then swap the right and left images around (this is basically what your brain does when you see, swaps the left and right eyes views around).. you can use a progrma called Stereo Photo Maker to help sort alignment (incase your shifted up or down when your moved your weight taking the photos).. you then save out one image with both of these images side by side.
For viewing, Slowly cross your eyes until you see both images overlap and then you should be able to focus in on the full 3D image. It gets easier with practise and some people require to be closer or further away from the image to get it to work.. and there are a few who just can't get it at all. I can now focus into these images almost instantly and from various distances, i find it very easy which is handy as I can actaully view the pics i've taken side by side on the camera screen to make sure what i've taken is working before i even get them on the PC.. lol
anyway, here is a few I have done, hope you like..
|
|
|
|
03/20/2012 02:55:24 PM · #22 |
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.
There may be another way, I believe. Somebody here should try this with one of your stereogram pics already posted here:
You make an animated gif out of both images. First show one image then the other at around .25 second intervals. Put it in an infinite loop.
You will probably want to play with the interval to get the best effect. It would be great if someone would try it and post the results in this thread.
Message edited by author 2012-03-20 14:55:44. |
|
|
|
03/20/2012 03:11:06 PM · #23 |
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.
There may be another way, I believe. |
Mine are made to be printed and viewed with a stereoscopic viewer -- I don't even try to look at them online. That's why I thought it would be tough to run as a regular challenge.
@ stphq: 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.
Message edited by author 2012-03-20 15:22:34. |
|
|
|
03/20/2012 03:14:47 PM · #24 |
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.
There may be another way, I believe. Somebody here should try this with one of your stereogram pics already posted here:
You make an animated gif out of both images. First show one image then the other at around .25 second intervals. Put it in an infinite loop.
You will probably want to play with the interval to get the best effect. It would be great if someone would try it and post the results in this thread. |
Won't work.. the reason the crosseyed effect works is because it replicates what your mind does all the time when you use your eyes. Thats why when you take the 2 images they must be at slight offset angles to represent each of your eyes vision, then they must be displayed side by side with the right hand image on the left and vice versa. when you cross your eyes and overlap them your brain does the rest to recreate the depth your eyes would have originally seen. After practise it doesn't hurt your eyes so much, i actually don't get sore eyes at all now that i've got the knack of focusing into them very quickly.. it may be that you are sitting too close and as such are having to cross your eyes too much to get them to overlap.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2012 03:26:55 PM · #25 |
@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 in this thread, but with the right setup and pov, it could be very effective to use the animated gif approach.
Message edited by author 2012-03-20 15:32:48. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 11:31:19 AM EDT.
