These two photos were taken from two different positions. Some people are able to see the combination of the two photos as a single 3D image. Cross your eyes, letting them go out of focus, but cross them enough to make three images appear. Then concentrate on the central image, picking a single object as a primary subject. Bring that subject into focus, and then look around at the other objects in the photo. You can get a larger image by clicking on the photo.
6 comments:
You know it works but I am pretty practiced at the stereoscopic thing, I can usually move pretty effortlessly between upwards and normal. Sometimes, if I work at it a minute, I can resolve the other way (downwards). Once I get either upwards or downwards I have no problems.
BUT, the large image you have here is so spread apart (at normal computer viewing distance) that once I resolved the stereoscopic image I could only hold it for about 30 seconds before the muscles in my eyes got too tired from being so crosseyed.
:)
Actually it was more like this
รถ
hehe
Anyway, it looks really cool but I think it is difficult to resolve unless you step back but then you lose some resolution of the details.
Lastly, I found that the only way I was able to actually pull the images together was using the ears in the rabbit as my primary target (after of course wrapping my eyes around the bridge of my nose.)
Cool lighting for the shot, gives the 3D effect an interesting aura.
Egads! I could fairly easily accomplish the 3-D effect on the small images on the BLOG, but when I tried to do it with the large pictures, I had the same problem as the unBleif, namely, I had to really strain to cross my eyes far enough.
Also, my screen could not encompass the full width of both pictures, so I had to concentrate on just a portion and then scroll the image back and forth sideways.
I didn't get unBlief's talk about "upwards" and "downwards". Oh well it was probably unBleif-vteovable anyway.
Thanks for the feedback. I should have re-sized the photos before I uploaded them. I had the same trouble, but learned to back way out to view the big images. I was doing that automatically by the time I got around to posting the experiment, so I forgot to mention that part.
I was also pleased and surprised an the special lighting. I used my Mag flashlight, held as far back as possible, while still being able to press the camera shutter button. Of course, I had the camera set to incandescent white balance, so that helped too.
My most profound discovery was that the photo on the right was actually taken on the left side, and the reverse for the other one. That's because when you cross your eyes, your "central" image is made up of the right eye seeing the left photo, and the left eye seeing the right photo. Isn't that weird?
Very cool. I've wanted to be able to do this. Didn't know the trick about swapping sides of the picture.
I don't think I EVER would have thought about swapping images.
That is very strange.
What I meant by upwards downwards I take from the stereograms that are very low resolution images where you can actually see the layers of the depth. Well if you "cross" your eyes they appear to be coming upwards towards you, in front of the plane of the paper/screen. If you "un-cross" your eyes they appear to be going downwards, away from you, behind the plane of the paper/screen.
I don't think that would work in this case...but I don't exactly know why.
One more thing...I think it would be cooler if you blurred the edges between the two images.
Post a Comment