What's new
GR User Forum

The spot for all Ricoh GR camera users

Register for free, meet other Ricoh GR users, share your images, help others, have fun!

Tell your friends about us!

Stereo 3D pictures

33dollars

33dollars

Active Member
Been experamenting with 3D photographs & program from http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/index.html The program will make many types of 3D pictures. This is the crosseyed method.

Shot this tonight at work. From atop a toolbox with my GRD2.

To view in 3-D, cross your eyes until a third image appears in between the two pictures and then relax your eyes until the middle image comes into focus.
It may be difficult at first but once you do it a few times it gets much easier.


.
 

Attachments

  • RowB-3D_Stereo.jpg
    EXIF
    RowB-3D_Stereo.jpg
    173.8 KB · Views: 441
I was able to do the trick some years ago (I tested that with so-called Julesz random dot stereograms), but regrettably it does no longer work for me...
Best regards, Gerd
 
Phil, I've always been fascinated with stereograms. When there was their boom here some 15-20 years ago or so, almost every paper published them. More usual was the "parallel-eyed" version many times recalling a sand storm when looking at the image.

Thanks for posting.

Peter
 
Phil,

Nope, no matter how much i look at the images.....still can't get a 3D view......do you think alcohol would help :lol:

Great idea though.

David
 
Wow! :eek:

I... was about to say that I saw the 3D, but no. I'm so tired now... :roll:

I'm a stereogram huge fan, love to see them and I can see them quite easily. .But not in this case. Phil, do you have any suggestion about distance/size viewing? I donwloaded the file to see it on the black Faststone frame, adjusted the size from bigger to smaller... I'm really tired :lol:

Anyway, thanks for the link, it seems a place to explore ;)
 
I took a screenshot and resized the stereogram in PSE. I was able to see the photo in 3D at 50% and at 60% of its original size, but no longer at 75%. At that small size (50-60%), however, the LCD "grid" is somewhat disturbing. To sum up: For some people the size and separation of the images may be a problem...
Best regards, Gerd
 
Gerd, I went until 40%. Then I could overlap both images and the third one was clear. But with such a small size the 3D effect/detail is somehow lost.

Errrr, did I mention that I've got my reading glasses this time? :roll:

If this works like stereograms, I remember reading about 10% of people that couldn't "see" it...

Edit: Gerd, you're right about the LCD grid. It's really disturbing...
 
@rui: There are indeed some people who do not have 3D vision. For example, I am still not sure, whether my wife has "real" 3D" vision. For her, it does not seem to make a difference, whether she sees a scene with one or two eyes -- for me, it's a huge (but also subtle) difference. Moreover, I learned from the psychology of perception that there are a number of strong 2D cues that create a "3d-effect" (perspective, overlap, relative size, motion(!) ...). In addition, some researchers (e.g. Kaufmann) even doubt that there is "real" 3D vision -- but I cannot follow them... However, I found some instances where I had a striking 3D effect with one eye only (size mattered here, for example)...
Best regards, gerd
 
I'm not sure if this examples (stereograms) can be called 3D, but they fool the brain into that perception.

This is a case of 3D effect that seems very easy to "see", just with the unfocused image the brain "transforms" the information he gets from the "two channels"
http://www.eyetricks.com/3dstereo4.htm

This is one of those with a great depth, but the motivs are the same:
http://www.eyetricks.com/3dstereo72.htm

On both situations, both eyes are required to see the effect, and it's clear now that my brain needs a little help from my glasses... ;-)
 
Thanks rui -- I could see both of them after a few seconds. Those are examples of the stereograms that were popular about 10 years ago (I have several books with those -- there were quite a lot of books on the shelves...). Both are similar in spirit to the original Julesz random dot stereograms, but even though they require some practice, they do not need such a large change in convergence as the classic stereograms do (and the one published in this thread). The new thing is that you need only one image, not two -- therefore, there are called auto stereograms (as far as I can remember...).
BUT: This type of stereogram, as you said, cannot be viewed with one eye only, it needs the so-called binocular disparity (difference between the views of both eyes) to work.
Best regards, Gerd
 
Hmmm... can't see it. I've never been able to see those, though. You know when the Dept. of Motor Vehicles asks you to do an eye test, and says "Which circles seem to be floating"? None of them float for me.
 
For me I sit square on to the monitor, 40 to 60 cm's approx 2feet. & stare at the image. Then I cross my eyes untill three images are seen. I then concentrate on the center one untill my eyes focus the image & see the 3D effect. Some people just can't focus when there eyes are crossed. I went with the cross eyed method because that way, no glasses are needed.
The image reminds me of the view through a pair of binoculars. :geek:
 
I can never see those stereograms. But I like to do the crosseyed ones because no viewing equipment is needed, just cross eyes.
Here is another one i shot today.

To view in 3-D, cross your eyes until a third image appears in between the two pictures and then relax your eyes until the middle image comes into focus.
It may be difficult at first but once you do it a few times it gets much easier.
 

Attachments

  • RIMG7973.jpg
    EXIF
    RIMG7973.jpg
    143.4 KB · Views: 212
For those with problems seeing the 3D effect despite the instruction, I would like to repeat my suggestion decrease the site of the image in an image editing application. When I resized it to 400 pixels width, I had no problems seeing the 3D effect (although its probably less striking); with 500 pixels I had some initial difficulties, but succeded after a while. But with 600 pixels, it did no longer work for me. 20 years ago, in my forties, I did not have such difficulties...
Best regards, Gerd
BTW: There are two ways of crossing your eyes. As each eye seems two images, you can either merge the inner or the outer ones - the latter is much more difficult...
 
I too have been experimenting with 3D, but lately I am using a Loreo Lens-In-A-Cap with a film camera.

I was able to see your 3D quite clearly. Keep up the good work!
 
Phil, I can see the 3D scenes also. The last one is great for its big depth and thus for a nice 3D effect.

Nevertheless, there is one tiny confusing detail. Let's play a little. Can you find it, anybody?

Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top