3D Stereogram! - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/29/2005 10:24:37 AM · #1

Here's the best 3D stereogram that i've cooked up so far. By best, I mean the one with the nicest 3D elements to it that stand out, and th e one that gives you the least amount of headache. I've stared at it for quite a while and my head and eyes still feel fine. Enjoy!

For those who don't know how:
Look at the picture a comfortable distance away (around 50cm from the screen). Cross your eyes: you will see 4 images then, like a drunkard. Then, cross your eyes until you see only 3 pictures: 2 on the side + 1 in the middle which is the superposition of the 2 originals. You may have to rotate your head slightly to get the alignment properly. Then, it's a matter of relaxing your eyes, and allowing your brain to lock the superimposed center images into one 3D image (which is what your brain does all the time anyway). You will then see the plant in FULL 3D!
My experience is that only about 4 out of 20 people could do it, so don't feel dumb if you can't get it. But it may take several tries for a beginner... so keep trying. Good luck!

Note: I am not responsible for the headaches this may cause people. Try at your own risk!

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D

06/29/2005 10:33:37 AM · #2

That's pretty cool! And for some reason I just ate a whole box of twinkies! :^)

sabphoto

Samsung Galaxy S8/S8+

06/29/2005 10:36:22 AM · #3

I can usually see these pretty quick but not this one, I wonder if that black like between them has to be there or not or maybe too big? I have always wanted to try one but not sure about all the needed elements so it could just be that I'm out of wack today.

Good image by the way, love the colors and sharpness.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/29/2005 10:45:46 AM · #4

Originally posted by sabphoto:

The black between them helps. What happens with stereograms is that it is impossible to crop both images exactly, so there is always a sketchy region around the border where elements don't overlap nicely. Don't look at those regions too long or you'll get a headache; stick to about 80% of the inner area. Without the black border, elements from the center picture overlap with elements from the side pictures, giving you more of a headache. So basically, the black border isolates the 3D image from the 2 useless images on either side, at the expense of having to cross your eyes slightly more, but only slightly.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

06/29/2005 10:50:24 AM · #5

Very nice. There is a LOT of 3D elements in that picture, which makes it one of the coolest ones I've ever seen! (and even if it weren't 3D it's a cool image all by itself which is quite a bonus)

Just curious... how far were you from the subject, and how far did you move the lens between the two pictures?

Here's one of the ones I did last year of my boy as I was first experimenting with stereograms. I liked it because you get the 3D effect along his arm (front to back) as well as the 3D effect in the block structure to the right.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

06/29/2005 11:08:16 AM · #6

Does the quantity of subject consumed relate to the degree of the effect observed?

I've seen a tripod attachment specifically for doing this -- puts the camera on a mount which slides along a precise path.

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

06/29/2005 11:11:37 AM · #7

Originally posted by dwterry:

I used my Sigma 105mm Macro. which is ideal for this pupose as is has no distortion. However, I think that a 70mm (35mm equivalent to a 105mm) is the ideal lens to use as it represents what you see with your eyes most faithfully. I took this a while ago, but I think i was about 70-80cm from the subject, then I moved the camera by about 10cm and snapped another shot. The best thing to do is to take several shots and slight angles from eachother and try them out to find the best combination.

The problem with your picture is the chair. I sorta hurts the eyes. The problem is that you exagerrated the 3 dimensionality of the subject and the tower, which is good on it's own, but the chair is too far away and therefore your brain can't fit it to the picture properly.

bpickard

Fujifilm FinePix S3000

06/29/2005 01:08:24 PM · #8

Is it me or are the two examples shown above using different viewing approaches (i.e. right and left images reversed with respect to each other)? Using my cross-eyed technique the boy and blocks image looks really great but the plant looks like inverted 3D. Ben

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/29/2005 01:37:27 PM · #9

Originally posted by bpickard:

See the first part of my previous comment for a possible explanation of this phenomenon.

art-inept

Olympus C-5060WZ

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

06/29/2005 01:42:59 PM · #10

well now we all feel like stoners

art-inept

Olympus C-5060WZ

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

06/29/2005 01:44:37 PM · #11

how do you make one of these stereograms? is there a trick to it, like what angle the two images have to be at to get this effect?

Imagineer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/29/2005 03:40:51 PM · #12

Art-inept(!) - check out this thread for more info on how to make them.

Labuda - your posted image is in reverse for some people. I've noticed that people are now posting stereo shots with the left image repeated on the right as a threesome, which allows everyone to view it with their preferred technique.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

06/29/2005 03:52:44 PM · #13

Originally posted by art-inept:

how do you make one of these stereograms? is there a trick to it, like what angle the two images have to be at to get this effect?

There is... sorta. You need to keep the "implied angle" to something within reason of what you would normally see.

That does NOT mean... that the lens can only be moved the same space as the distance between your eyes.

But it DOES mean that you can't exceed the kind of angle that the brain is used to processing. So, for example, if you take a picture of something 10 feet away, you might only move the lens a couple of inches. But if you take a picture of something that is 1000 feet away, you can get away with moving the lens a foot or more.

I've done some really neat pictures by doing this. One was of a waterfall way up high. Your eyes are too close together to see the 3D aspect of something so far away. But if you exagerate it, by moving the camera say, 10 feet, and print the pictures side by side, then suddenly you can see a 3D aspect to the image that you would never have known existed.

There's a wealth of information about stereograms on the internet. This will get you started: //www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~kswiatek/StereoResources.html

There is a website that has a bunch of calculations for figuring out a maximum angle for shooting. I can't remember it. But I'm pretty sure I stumbled across it after starting with the above URL and digging down thru several sites.

07/06/2005 06:35:51 AM · #14

Originally posted by Imagineer:

Labuda - your posted image is in reverse for some people. I've noticed that people are now posting stereo shots with the left image repeated on the right as a threesome, which allows everyone to view it with their preferred technique.

I don't see how it can be reversed if you do the cross-eyed technique. With crossed-eyes, your right eyes sees the left photo in the center, and vice versa. So the reconstructed image must be "positive"... I'm still not clear how to do the second technique. You would have to focus your left eye on the left image and your right eye on the right image, right? Is that even possible?

aKiwi

Canon EOS-7D

07/06/2005 07:10:21 AM · #15

Funny, I spent a few minutes staring cross eyed at my monitor & only saw multiple fuzzy images, then Wham chrystal clear & pin sharp & easy to hold. Lucky noone came in to see me :-)
Realy nice effect, but how do you display something like this. I saw that someone converted an image like this to a gif where both images were repeatedly shown.
Here is the link

07/06/2005 07:57:48 AM · #16

Here. I tried the wiggle technique... but it really doesn't give it justice. The cross-eyed technique actually looks 3D, while this just looks semi-retarded.

Message edited by author 2005-07-06 08:01:42.

aKiwi

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/06/2005 08:29:25 AM · #17

I disagree.
If only 20% of people can see such an image, then you have just hepled 80% of the viewers to see this. I don't find it too bad at all. Ok it doesn't have the punch of the crosseyed technique, but I can look at without looking like a total demented moron, I don't get a headache after it, and my eyes don't feel like someone has tried to pull them out of my head.

jtf6agent

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

07/06/2005 02:39:59 PM · #18

What no buds???

w24x192

Canon PowerShot S50

07/06/2005 03:02:46 PM · #19

For me, the image is too large to make my eyes cross that much. Once I shrank it down, I got it.

So...what is the best size to make the images, anyway?

Fujifilm FinePix S5500 Zoom

07/07/2005 08:15:01 AM · #20

Originally posted by w24x192:

For me, the image is too large to make my eyes cross that much. Once I shrank it down, I got it.

So...what is the best size to make the images, anyway?

The quickest easiest way to shrink an image is by taking a step back. That way, you also get the largest resolution, as opposed to shrinking it digitally.

gadget

07/08/2005 02:39:52 PM · #21

That's the coolest thing! Is there a site online with lots of these, I want more (might correct my outward-skewed eye if I do enough)! Very very impressed with the thread-starter image.

Imagineer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/08/2005 04:40:57 PM · #22

Originally posted by labuda:

Originally posted by Imagineer:

Labuda - your posted image is in reverse for some people. I've noticed that people are now posting stereo shots with the left image repeated on the right as a threesome, which allows everyone to view it with their preferred technique.

I don't see how it can be reversed if you do the cross-eyed technique. With crossed-eyes, your right eyes sees the left photo in the center, and vice versa. So the reconstructed image must be "positive"... I'm still not clear how to do the second technique. You would have to focus your left eye on the left image and your right eye on the right image, right? Is that even possible?

I've tried both ways and I think the difference is that with the cross-eyed technique you are focusing in between the screen and your face and with the 'wall-eyed' technique your focal convergence is beyond the screen, as if daydreaming.

Imagineer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II