Stereo photos - DPChallenge Forums

03/26/2012 03:32:54 AM · #1

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.

03/20/2012 06:55:12 PM · #2

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.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/20/2012 06:16:48 PM · #3

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 06:01:52 PM · #4

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.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/20/2012 05:22:35 PM · #5

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

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/20/2012 05:17:38 PM · #6

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 05:02:34 PM · #7

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.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/20/2012 03:44:34 PM · #8

Originally posted by stphq:

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 03:32:47 PM · #9

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..

Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/20/2012 03:29:25 PM · #10

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.

weheh

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

03/20/2012 03:26:55 PM · #11

@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.

03/20/2012 03:14:47 PM · #12

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.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/20/2012 03:11:06 PM · #13

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.

weheh

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/20/2012 02:55:24 PM · #14

03/20/2012 02:06:25 PM · #15

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..

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/11/2012 06:14:56 PM · #16

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.

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/11/2012 05:40:19 PM · #17

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.