When cross-eyed 3d goes bad...

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Mark Thomas, Jun 12, 2008.

  1. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Whilst out wandering today, I thought I would try out that cross-eyed 3d
    thing...

    Trouble was, I didn't find anything particularly aesthetic. But having
    regard to the fact that most of the 3d shots I've seen recently weren't
    really all that aesthetically brilliant either (grin) I figured I'd go
    for it anyway. So what better than a wide angle shot of some boring
    power pylons... Taken with very little care, I might add.

    http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/weird3d.jpg

    Hmm. Did I do it right? Seems to work for my eyes, but I'm slightly
    short-sighted (add a bit of astigmatism..)

    yes, that explains a lot.. (O:)

    But I am little puzzled by that cloud between the pylons - it seems to
    have actually moved forward so it *is* between the pylons...!! I'm
    guessing that is because it moved between shots, or maybe because my
    inter-oc distance was a little too wide?

    Now, to find an attractive scene and try again. Thanks for the
    inspiration, Troy.
     
    Mark Thomas, Jun 12, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mark Thomas

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * Mark Thomas wrote :
    Awesome! It's contagious.
    Looks good to me. As I mentioned to JeffR who posted a similar
    shot with the base of some sort of transmission tower, the
    trussed frame really adds to it because of the intricacy I think.
    I reckon it's because the cloud has moved slightly between shots.
    You're relying on everything keeping in the same place while you
    take the second shot so the perspectives match. If they move, it
    gives a false perspective and hence different/incorrect 3D effect.
    :) Bring it :)
     
    Troy Piggins, Jun 12, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mark Thomas

    Jeff R. Guest

    Smile when you say that, brother... (Oh! You *did*)
    Yup.
    Works fine for me too.
    Aesthetically intricately brilliant!

    Agreed 100%
    Troy's nailed the reason for sure.
    If you'd taken the shots in the other order, then that bit of cloud would
    look *really* distant!


    There used to be a Sydney Stereo Camera Club. I don't know if they're still
    active.
    Here's a link: http://www.oz3d.info/sscc/library/history/history.htm

    Any lurking members?

    My uncle took me to one of their slide evenings many years ago, and any of
    them would be laughing at our amateurish attempts. They had the technique
    nailed down tight. Rules about whether an image was supposed to extent
    behind or in front of the plane of the viewing screen... (more like that)

    They projected their slides (digital? whassat?) with twin projectors fitted
    with polarised filters at 90° to each other. Every member has his own
    personal polarised glasses, which blocked the wrong and passed the right
    image in each eye.. The effect on the big screen was stunning. No effort
    at all to view them - they just popped into perfect stereo.

    And boy - were those guys critical.
    None of our sorry examples would have been considered satisfactory - for all
    sorts of (perfectly valid) reasons.

    As I said, I don't know if they are still active as a club. Anyone? I
    must say, they weren't exactly youngsters when I visited their meeting about
    10 years ago...

    I casually mentioned anaglyphic stereograms to one of them (red/blue stereo
    pairs - a'la picture theatre) and was met with blank stares. They struck me
    as super-conservative... in a good kind of way.

    I guess I'll go and do some more Googling on them...
     
    Jeff R., Jun 12, 2008
    #3
  4. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    I must admit, it is rather cool, and the illusion of extra sharpness is
    quite interesting.

    Well, some were ok, but you gotta admit that most of these subjects
    probably wouldn't rate much interest without the 3d..
    I choose to take that as a sincere compliment. (Yes, gullible..)
    Yep, as I thought about the physics, it became clear to me.
    Crikey, mate. (O: That's getting serious.
    Well, I think the challenge is now there to make something that stands
    on its own as an image, and also has the 3d... Last one there is a
    rotten egg!
    This is interesting, and I wonder what possibilities exist with simple
    colour filtering instead of using cross eyes? It's easy to make up
    coloured glasses with cellophane.

    I remember being fascinated as a kid by the effect you got looking at
    simple things like brightly coloured comics, when using those red/blue
    glasses. I even made a few up myself, carefully choosing cellophane
    colour pairs that were (sort of) colour-chart opposed - usually
    blue/orange or purple/amber rather than blue/red.

    This effect still puzzles me - you do get a strange 3d effect even
    though you are not looking at a stereo pair.. Only seems to work on
    flat, brightly coloured images like comics - some sort of psychological
    effect no doubt...


    Anyway, it's an interesting diversion.

    mt


    PS - I wonder if this technique could somehow be combined with a linear
    panorama? If anyone can do it.. (O:
     
    Mark Thomas, Jun 12, 2008
    #4
  5. Mark Thomas

    Jeff R. Guest

    Yup.
    "Serious" is the word all right.
    Well yes - but remember that we will be re-inventing the wheel.
    Those guys did it all before. Wheel, axle, gearbox and engine...
    Aw heck - I forget again?
    Have I posted any of my sad anaglyphic shots here before?
    If not, I'd rather not just now, because the site they're on identifies me
    with more certainty than I'd like to use right now :)

    I'm so geeky I even sent Xmas cards to family and friends with anaglyphs of
    my kids in Santa costumes... (red/blue glasses included)

    They're easy to produce in ps - just delete the red channel and insert the
    red channel from the other shot. Lots of instructions how to on ta
    interweb.

    Catch is - as easy as it is to view them, you can't discount the loss of
    colour. The shots end up effectively monochrome - otherwise you lose
    separation and visual effect.

    Better quality is achieved by using parallel (*not* cross-eyed, that is)
    pairs, and then viewing them with a Stereoscope (just like Liptons Tea used
    to produce and market many years ago.)

    The catch with that method is that the stereo pair must be quite small in
    order to work - only a couple of inches wide per pic. Otherwise its just
    too hard to merge them. Freeform viewing is possible with parallel (for
    years this was the only way I could free-view stereo... cross-eyed eluded me
    until relatively recently.) Now that my aging eyes are losing accommodation
    ability, I can no longer comfortably parallel view, so I had to learn how to
    cross-eye. Glad I did. Its much better, as the pics can be much bigger
    (and much higher res) and still be viewed easily.

    The ultimate, however, remains the cross-polarised projected transparencies.
    Gob-smacking!
    I'm tempted to make a reference to LSD, but I might get mis-judged if I
    do...

    Didn't I mention?
    All my stereo pairs are stepped-out....
     
    Jeff R., Jun 12, 2008
    #5
  6. Mark Thomas

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * Jeff R. wrote :
    Ouch. Tough crowd. Not as tough as us, though :)
     
    Troy Piggins, Jun 12, 2008
    #6
    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.