More bad 3D images and lessons learned..

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Mark Thomas, Jun 18, 2008.

  1. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    At the risk of further eyestrain, herewith two more cross-eyed stereograms:

    http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/stereo_brisbane.jpg
    http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/stereo_colacan.jpg

    They are not very good - but it's all part of the learning experience
    and it's nice to have a new weapon in the arsenal.. What I learnt here:

    - the most effective shots have a range of close, mid- and long-distance
    objects, unlike those two! These shots have a very flat looking
    background, because there is little in the middle distance tying the
    foreground to the cityscape.

    - you can overdo the separation - I find these quite hard to lock onto
    and hold in 3D mode. They hurt my eyes even more than the usual ones,
    especially the second!

    And as before, either you need to shoot via two cameras simultaneously,
    or be prepared for problems if anything moves (eg that boat..)

    I'll try again later, and maybe also concentrate on finding scenes that
    are in portrait mode to try to lessen the eye strain..

    For those interested, AC and Jeff R posted better examples here:
    http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/browse_frm/thread/a02e03f2d8528ee3/
     
    Mark Thomas, Jun 18, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Mark Thomas, Jun 18, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mark Thomas

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * Mark Thomas wrote :
    I don't mind them. Think the first is better - that handrail
    really comes out towards you, and while the bridge and city do
    look a little flat, but the sky does look beyond that.
    Agreed. I learnt that too.
    I didn't have a problem with them. What separation did you have?
    Unless it's part of the main subject, I think that sort of thing
    is forgiven. As one of those transmission tower shots showed
    (not sure if it was yours of Jeff's), moving clouds seem to cause
    a distorted 3D effect. Need to take the 2 shots really soon
    after each other.
    Thanks for sharing them Mark :)
    This guy has some awesome ones. Some are cross-eyes, some are
    those red/blue anaglyphs.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/balliolman/

    such as this:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/balliolman/2535311325/in/photostream/
     
    Troy Piggins, Jun 18, 2008
    #3
  4. Mark Thomas

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * Mark Thomas wrote :
    No worries mate. Mine weren't /that/ good.
     
    Troy Piggins, Jun 18, 2008
    #4
  5. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Ermm.. about 12" I think.. (O: I just sorta moved a bit sideways.. It
    was intentional, as I wanted to know what would happen.. Perhaps I
    should go even further to see when it all comes 'unstuck', and how..
    Mine..
    http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/weird3d.jpg

    I find that displaced or missing objects seem to 'glow' (not the right
    word but it's hard to describe) - is that normal or is my vision
    (brain?) weirder than I thought?
    Just had time to check that one - yes!! That is exactly the sort of
    scene this technique cries out for, imo.


    Got other things to do today, but I shall keep my eyes open..
     
    Mark Thomas, Jun 18, 2008
    #5
  6. whew, I was scratching my head trying to think when I posted any
    stereogram's :)
    and considering my stereopsis prevents me from seeing them, I imagine any I
    post would be complete shite :)
     
    Atheist Chaplain, Jun 18, 2008
    #6
  7. Mark Thomas

    N Guest


    Maybe you have stereoblindness - the lack of stereopsis.
     
    N, Jun 18, 2008
    #7
  8. My eyes are about 12 degrees out of alignment(not enough to notice if you
    looked at me) that's not a problem for day to day stuff as the brain has
    been compensating for over 40 years now and I don't notice any different,
    but I am totally unable to see any of those magic pictures or stereogram's,
    never have and never will, its not a problem for me :)
    My Ophthalmologist called it stereopsis so I take his word for it :)
     
    Atheist Chaplain, Jun 18, 2008
    #8
  9. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Heheh! First it was he-who-shall-not-be-mentioned, now it's *me*
    wrongly attributing stuff to you...! But you'll note that I apologised..


    And hey, AC, I can try re-aligning them at 12° to suit your camber
    problems if you like, but I'll need to know which wheel... (O:
     
    Mark Thomas, Jun 18, 2008
    #9
  10. Mark Thomas

    Jeff R. Guest

    Nice ones.
    Work well.

    As someone (who?) observed a little while ago - now we've got the technique
    down pat, we really aught'a find some - subject matter.

    :)

    (Other than fences and handrails coming up close to us.)

    I'll set you a challenge Mark (and Brett and anyone else).

    *Without* using a dedicated stereo camera, (cheating), take and post a shot
    of a kid throwing a ball towards the camera.
    Ball must in flight, close(ish) to the camera(s).

    No fair faking it in ps. No strings allowed.

    No prize - just glory.
     
    Jeff R., Jun 18, 2008
    #10
  11. Maybe I'm just so memorable LOL and thanks for correcting yourself and
    apologizing, otherwise I would have just gotten more and more worried that
    my memory was failing me :)

    Right eye ;-)
    born with Duane's retraction syndrome (and passed it on to my son:-( )so my
    right eye can move up, down, left, but not right, the left eye has complete
    movement, I have EXCELLENT peripheral vision in my right eye though, I can
    nearly see my right shoulder with my head looking straight ahead :)
     
    Atheist Chaplain, Jun 18, 2008
    #11
  12. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Thanks. But don't patronise me!! (O:
    Got me there...
    Wait a minute... are we still talking stereograms? If so, that is quite
    a challenge! I'm mulling over it already...
    Gee, there's a surprise. He's also got a valid address for me, but
    nothing will ever arrive. (O:

    Actually, I think it's getting close to his longest disappearance - he
    musta been really embarrassed... But then, that ridiculous 'panorama'
    of beachhouses was still up last time I looked.. Strange that he hasn't
    pulled it.
     
    Mark Thomas, Jun 18, 2008
    #12
  13. Mark Thomas

    Jeff R. Guest

    Well - yeahhh...

    (Not much challenge in a single portrait)

    Mind you - I can't see me doing this in the forseeable - I'm so busy doing
    my stepped-out panos... uhh, I mean looking up new ISPs since getting
    booted.... uhhhh....

    Oh crap.

    I'll dust off the pair of Niks and find a ball....
    [gulp]
    I'd better start saving up for the booze for the party....
     
    Jeff R., Jun 18, 2008
    #13
  14. Mark Thomas

    Annika1980 Guest

    When I am doing these I have trouble remembering which pic was taken
    from the left and which from the right. You can tell by close
    examination of the pics. So is it correct to put the left photo on
    the right and vice-versa? I think that works best for cross-eyed
    viewing, but those with a Stereoscope (or whatever that thingy is
    called) will get better results if the pics are kept left/left and
    right/right.
     
    Annika1980, Jun 18, 2008
    #14
  15. Mark Thomas

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * Annika1980 wrote :
    You're going cross-eyed, so your right eye views the image on the
    left and vice versa.
     
    Troy Piggins, Jun 18, 2008
    #15
  16. Mark Thomas

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * Jeff R. wrote :
    I like the idea, but there's no way I could do that with only the
    one camera or without setting up an elaborate rig that will
    probably be beyond my MacGyver skillz.
     
    Troy Piggins, Jun 18, 2008
    #16
  17. Mark Thomas

    Jeff R. Guest

    I am a bad person.
    I am perfectly willing to cheat.
    http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/stereo-rig.jpg

    Its not *really* a "dedicated stereo camera" - is it?

    Actually, the "challenge" would be a piece of cake to fake in ps - with two
    background shots of the kid and one shot of the ball (selected by itself).

    Not that I am advocating cheating, of course.
    ( I was going to insert a gratuitous D-Mac reference here, but I fear that's
    getting tiresome, so I'll be good.)
     
    Jeff R., Jun 19, 2008
    #17
  18. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Similar here - I don't have two matching cameras, so the synching would
    be.. er.. interesting..
    Indeed - I wondered if you were conveniently pretending that rig isn't
    the equivalent of that dedicated stereo camera, and I reckon it is near
    enough..
    And look *genuine*? Easier said than done, I think, but I might give it
    a try - I'll see if I can train him to freeze as he releases the ball -
    then I can use one genuine shot of the scene, then another of him from
    the second angle, then see if I can clone the ball, and make the
    necessary adjustments into the second one.. I reckon if the original
    first scene is a genuine unretouched image and you can then PS your way
    into a good stereogram, it remains pretty close to a photograph..

    Other than that, I'm wondering if there is any way to do this with a
    large mirror... (and maybe smoke)
    It's worth noting (apart from one ongoing exception) that since
    he-who-shall-not-be-mentioned departed, everything seems very cordial.
    Even the spam seems to be dropping away... (O:

    But now I'm getting a little bored with stereograms, so what's next? I
    can't help thinking that all these 'tricky' imaging techniques (HDR,
    general ps work, IR, stereo, etc) are all just extensions of what has
    been done in the past. (I even saw an article recently on doing
    cross-processing in PS, but I didn't think much of the real thing anyway..)
    Surely there is something new and exciting awaiting discovery..? Or
    maybe I should just go backwards, and try out daguerreotypes (sp?), or
    something..
     
    Mark Thomas, Jun 19, 2008
    #18
  19. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    I did forget one thing I still haven't done much with - I have a ~9-stop
    ND filter to try out. I must try to keep it in the back of my mind
    (there's plenty of room!).. so when a suitable scene appears for a
    daylight time exposure, I'll drag it out.
     
    Mark Thomas, Jun 19, 2008
    #19
  20. Mark Thomas

    Jeff R. Guest

    There's an idea.
    I have my solar filters, but they will introduce *just a little* colour cast
    to the scene.

    But - what ps for, if not tweaking colour?
     
    Jeff R., Jun 19, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.