# Stereo Images



## eMacMan

Hardly a new idea. Stereo cameras have been around since prior to the US civil war and of course many of us still remember the Viewmasters. However you can do it with any still camera by taking a photo and then moving the camera to the right and taking another. Works best with square or vertical shots.

The two images are put together as below.

This image had a separation of about 3 feet. If there is no close foreground separation can be a lot greater, as much as 100 feet or more. Greater separation will exaggerate the stereo effect.

The idea is to view the left image with the left eye and the right image with the right eye. Depending on your screen resolution you may need to be three or four feet from your monitor. Reflections can make the images very difficult to view. If you can see the stereo pixel images this one should not give you any difficulty, but some people seem to be unable to do it all.

I am reluctantly removing my photos from this thread. The line in my sig asking that the rights of my photos be respected, was removed without my permission. That removal is a red flag which implies that the implied copyright will not be respected. For that reason these photos have been removed. While I have replaced the sig line, clearly there is no guarantee that it will remain unmolested.


----------



## Trose

Stereoscopy is pretty neat. My friend had an iPhone app that would help him take 3D photos, I think it was probably this one:

3D Camera for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad on the iTunes App Store

Personally, I find the cross-eyed type (left eye looks at right image, right eye looks at left image) much easier to focus on.


----------



## eMacMan

Sorry Trose but convention is not reversed. Still easy enough in PS or LightRoom for you to swap the images if that's how you prefer it.

Was hoping this might inspire a few of you to post your own efforts. In the meantime this burl I found last spring. Trying to keep it as big as possible so you will need to be back from the screen a fair bit.

Separation on this one was only a few inches.

View attachment 17259


----------



## DempsyMac

this sounds really interesting but I don't think I am getting it (sorry if I am a bit slow).

Could you help me out, should the images be morfing into one in my mind or jumping off the screen or something??


----------



## eMacMan

Trevor Robertson said:


> this sounds really interesting but I don't think I am getting it (sorry if I am a bit slow).
> 
> Could you help me out, should the images be morfing into one in my mind or jumping off the screen or something??


Some people simply cannot do it so don't feel that you are slow or dumb or anything else. 

*Sit back 3-4 feet from the screen*. Try to make sure there are no reflections. Force your eyes to uncross. You should see three images with the one in the middle showing 3D relief. It won't leap out of the screen but you will see that third dimension.

It may help to hold a piece of cardboard at right angles to the screen in such a way that the left eye can only see the left image and the right eye the right image. Gets fairly easy after you have done it once.

Might be a little easier with this smaller image:

View attachment 17269


----------



## DempsyMac

thanks got it, that is great!

Very cool, thanks!


----------



## SINC

Hmmm, doesn't work for me at any distance or with the cardboard bit either. It still looks like a pair of identical shots.


----------



## Max

Same here. Must be me and my defective eyes. Mind you, I have to wear glasses these days and they're progressive lenses. It may be that those conditions rule out the 'magic.'


----------



## Kazak

When I was a photogrammetrist, using a stereoplotter, stereo images were my bread and butter. The waterfall and tree worked fine, but the burl was inverted. I may have been too close.


----------



## ScanMan

eMacMan said:


> ... you can do it with any still camera by taking a photo and then moving the camera to the right and taking another. Works best with square or vertical shots.


The waterfall and tree are great, not getting the wood one though.

I've viewed and wondered about this technique before...are both shots focussed on a key element? Is it the slight angle difference between the two then, that leads to the 3D effect when both images are viewed side by side?

Never tried it, but can an image be copied, set beside its twin, and then both be horizontally rotated ever so slightly in Photoshop, so that they would mimic the scene as viewed by both human eyes? Would this create the same effect?


----------



## eMacMan

The burl is as big as I could make it and still see stereo, you definitely need to be at least three maybe four feet from the screen. If it's inverted your eyes are crossed.

A true stereo image tries to replicate what each eye sees. That is the second image is taken from a point about three inches to the right of the first. A normal length lens is used. These images are all exaggerated stereo. That is, unless the subject is very close the right image is more than a couple of inches offset. 

I try to frame the 2 images identically but move the camera to the right for the right hand image. For really close up shots like the burl, the separation is only slightly wider than your eyes. For the tree about two feet and perhaps five feet for the artesian spring. Where there is no foreground the separation can be a good deal more extreme. I often do a frame at 2 feet then one at five feet then another at about fifteen feet. Gives me a variety of separations to chose from depending which two photos I pair. A longer lens setting often requires more separation to give a good stereo image.

This spring shot of South Island Lake had a separation of at least 100 feet. Because I had also moved further away from the subject I had to enlarge and crop the second image slightly to get a good stereo effect.

View attachment 17300


----------



## ScanMan

But do you aim at exactly the same image element in both photos? Or is the camera simply pointing dead-ahead in both photos, though 100 ft. apart? 

Say a cropped image was filled with a dog's head shot at 50 ft and both left and right shots had been focussed on the animal's left nostril, rather than just the general area of the dog's face.


----------



## eMacMan

I pay more attention to the edges rather than the centre. Usually I pick the four intersections on the grid and try to have them all close to the same point. If you have a clearly identifiable point dead centre you can always use that as well. 

A big key is if you over shoot and crop you need to be careful not to resize one image in relation to the other. The more you play the less cropping you will need to do. First few attempts are usually failures/learning experiences but it is fairly easy to get the hang of it.

One thought; RAW is a completely wasted format here. Stick with 3 or 5 MP jpegs.

Final image seems to work best at around 500-550 pixel total width (250-275 pixels per side) so you will be spilling lots of pixels. This of course may vary with screen size and resolution.


----------



## ScanMan

OK, the reason I'm haranguing you about this, is I'd like to do something fun for my clients with 100-year-old portraits. So, from what I'm getting here, is that I could duplicate the same portrait, then simply recrop and resize it to make it appear that it was snapped at the same time, a foot or whatever, off to the side.

Worth a go.


----------



## eMacMan

This is somewhat different than aerial photography which is used for mapping an object. For that style stereo you would move right and let the frame shift to the right as well, thus overlap would not be complete.

Because these are just for enjoyment I try to shoot frames with as close to perfect overlap as is possible given that the camera is in two different places when the frames are shot. Differences will be most noticeable in the foreground.


----------



## eMacMan

ScanMan said:


> OK, the reason I'm haranguing you about this, is I'd like to do something fun for my clients with 100-year-old portraits. So, from what I'm getting here, is that I could duplicate the same portrait, then simply recrop and resize it to make it appear that it was snapped at the same time, a foot or whatever, off to the side.
> 
> Worth a go.


I doubt it since it is the slightly different angles that create the stereo effect, but it is always fun to experiment.


----------



## ScanMan

Thanks for discussing this. I think I'll fool around a bit with horizontally rotating identical pairs and see (or not) where that takes me.


----------



## Kazak

eMacMan said:


> This is somewhat different than aerial photography which is used for mapping an object. For that style stereo you would move right and let the frame shift to the right as well, thus overlap would not be complete.


Right. Forgot to mention that. We usually had a 60% overlap. One of the intriguing things about the job was reflecting on how we could make very accurate maps, even contours, based on a 3-d image that didn't exist in any tangible sense. Also, that in order to "clear the model," creating 3-d across the entire overlapping area, one had to duplicate, almost exactly, the plane's position and orientation in both photos.


----------



## eMacMan

Kazak said:


> Right. Forgot to mention that. We usually had a 60% overlap. One of the intriguing things about the job was reflecting on how we could make very accurate maps, even contours, based on a 3-d image that didn't exist in any tangible sense. Also, that in order to "clear the model," creating 3-d across the entire overlapping area, one had to duplicate, almost exactly, the plane's position and orientation in both photos.


Yes I wish I could find a market for an old Nistri Photogrammetric Plotter. Expensive machines in their day. Now the only thing of value is the thick 4 foot square marble slab that was machined to within 1/1000th of an inch of being perfectly flat.

Also remember building mosaics out of those photos. Hard to do really good ones as the camera was on a timer and no pilot alive could keep the plane both level and at the same altitude over the entire run.

The cameras were mounted on gyroscopes but that would only go so far towards canceling any tip or tilt.


----------



## eMacMan

View attachment 17604


----------



## ryerman

Cool concept. I didn't know this was possible without using some of that Magic Eye 3D trickery. So if you want to create one of these, taking 2 pics at 3 feet apart is the standard distance?

It didn't work for me. Then again, I wouldn't expect it to considering I'm like the guy in Mallrats who couldn't see the sailboat.


----------



## Macified

Try crossing your eyes until there is a new combined image between the originals. The new image will have more depth.

I can just hear my mother now, "Stop doing that! do you want your eyes to stay like that?"

The cross eyed method works well simple by taking to images. Line up your shot and lean to the left leg, snap. Lean to the right leg, snap. The minor visual differences in elevations and lighting will give the cross-eyed image depth.

Wonder how many ehMacer's will be staring cross-eyed at their monitors tonight.


----------



## ScanMan

Macified said:


> Try crossing your eyes until there is a new combined image between the originals. The new image will have more depth.
> 
> I can just hear my mother now, "Stop doing that! do you want your eyes to stay like that?"
> 
> The cross eyed method works well simple by taking to images. Line up your shot and lean to the left leg, snap. Lean to the right leg, snap. The minor visual differences in elevations and lighting will give the cross-eyed image depth.
> 
> Wonder how many ehMacer's will be staring cross-eyed at their monitors tonight.


Your last one was cool. I don't consciously cross my eyes, they simply unfocus and "find" the new image. A skill I picked up at cocktail parties, no doubt.


----------



## eMacMan

ScanMan said:


> Your last one was cool. I don't consciously cross my eyes, they simply unfocus and "find" the new image. A skill I picked up at cocktail parties, no doubt.


The last one was never intended to be stereo. Just took 2 different images with different zoom ratios and slightly different locations. Had to crop in quite a bit and crop each image by different amounts. A bit more separation would have been great but like I said I was just trying to get the best framing.

As for separation for close-ups 3-6 inches is often enough. For scenics it really depends on how close you are to the foreground. Any thing from 2-5 feet to several hundred feet. Since images can be 2 or 3 MP jpegs no reason not to shoot several and pick the 2 that work best together. After a several tries you will get a good feel for the correct separation.


----------



## Andrew Pratt

> When I was a photogrammetrist, using a stereoplotter, stereo images were my bread and butter.


Me too! These are pretty fun.


----------



## eMacMan

Like this statue/sculpture. Maybe 3 or 4 feet of separation.

You may need to move back a bit depending on screen resolution.

View attachment 18246


----------



## SINC

Must be my eyes but I can't see anything but two separate, identical pics on any of these things and that is going back up to 12 feet on a 22 inch monitor.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Must be my eyes but I can't see anything but two separate, identical pics on any of these things and that is going back up to 12 feet on a 22 inch monitor.


Don some people just can't do it. Nothing at all wrong with them.

Best bet is a piece of card board held between the eyes at right angles to the screen. Idea being to force right eye to see only the right image and the left eye to view only the left. Close one eye then the other to see if the cardboard is the right size & in the right place. I would think 3-4 feet would be about the right distance.


----------



## yeeeha

I didn't set out to take a pair of images to turn them into a 3D image. It just happened that when I took a few pix of the scene moving around a bit, two consecutive images had enough parallax to create a 3D view. You need a red-blue 3D glasses to view this 3D image. Unfortunately the colours are muted with this approach. Well, there aren't too many colours in the scene to begin with so you won't miss much.

eMacMan, I can't seem to get the 3D effect using a pair of left-right images side-by-side like the way you have yours. I wonder why. Perhaps the scene is too busy?


----------



## fjnmusic

eMacMan said:


> Hardly a new idea. Stereo cameras have been around since prior to the US civil war and of course many of us still remember the Viewmasters. However you can do it with any still camera by taking a photo and then moving the camera to the right and taking another. Works best with square or vertical shots.
> 
> The two images are put together as below.
> 
> This image had a separation of about 3 feet. If there is no close foreground separation can be a lot greater, as much as 100 feet or more. Greater separation will exaggerate the stereo effect.
> 
> The idea is to view the left image with the left eye and the right image with the right eye. Depending on your screen resolution you may need to be three or four feet from your monitor. Reflections can make the images very difficult to view. If you can see the stereo pixel images this one should not give you any difficulty, but some people seem to be unable to do it all.
> 
> View attachment 17202


I can see! I can see! It's a miracle!

But I have to be about 6 inches away from the screen.


----------



## eMacMan

yeeeha said:


> I didn't set out to take a pair of images to turn them into a 3D image. It just happened that when I took a few pix of the scene moving around a bit, two consecutive images had enough parallax to create a 3D view. You need a red-blue 3D glasses to view this 3D image. Unfortunately the colours are muted with this approach. Well, there aren't too many colours in the scene to begin with so you won't miss much.
> 
> eMacMan, I can't seem to get the 3D effect using a pair of left-right images side-by-side like the way you have yours. I wonder why. Perhaps the scene is too busy?


Another way to do it but sadly my red-blue glasses are about 1200 miles away. However I am glad to see someone else giving it try.

I do find that vertical or square images work better than traditional horizontal style. Also traditional 3D cameras might have the lenses 3-6 inches apart but I find greater separation produces more dramatic results. I always shoot left then right image that way I know which image is which. Only time I use less than two or three feet is if doing close-ups.

For me final total picture width should be a max of ~600 pixels. If you are using very high screen resolution you might get by with slightly larger images but that may be a bit big for others to view.

Anyways in the digital era, "film" is free and unwanted images easily disposed of, so nothing to lose in attempting to take a second or third image to try for that stereo image.


----------



## yeeeha

eMacMan said:


> final total picture width should be a max of ~600 pixels.


That works! When I tried the free-viewing method initially, I had the images too large.

I then tried 720px wide total. It worked too but it took longer to get the 3D effect and I got a headache viewing it. At 650px wide total, the time it took to fuse the two images was shorter but I still got an eye strain. No problem with total 600px wide.


----------



## eMacMan

yeeeha said:


> That works! When I tried the free-viewing method initially, I had the images too large.
> 
> I then tried 720px wide total. It worked too but it took longer to get the 3D effect and I got a headache viewing it. At 650px wide total, the time it took to fuse the two images was shorter but I still got an eye strain. No problem with total 600px wide.


Yep that's it.


----------



## yeeeha

Here's another one. Again not the original intention to create a 3D image. The free-view version is a colour image, but there isn't really much colour in the scene.


----------



## eMacMan

Shot taken in the Austin Bluffs area of Colorado Springs. Separation about 3-5 feet.
View attachment 18436


----------



## yeeeha

eMacMan said:


> Shot taken in the Austin Bluffs area of Colorado Springs. Separation about 3-5 feet.
> View attachment 18436


Nice!

How tall are the geological structures? What are these structures called?


----------



## eMacMan

yeeeha said:


> Nice!
> 
> How tall are the geological structures? What are these structures called?


Just eroded sandstone. NOt as soft as the hoodoos in Banff or Drumheller. Easy to scramble to the top. Maybe 10-15 feet high.


----------



## SINC

Man, I wish I could see these. They just do not exist for me. All they are is two similar pics, albeit edited to move slightly one way or the other from one another. Sigh.


----------



## Vexel

SINC, try crossing your eyes intentionally a bit.. until you start to see the 3rd image, your eyes will do the rest once they focus. I'm on a 13" Macbook pro and I'm about 4 feet from the screen for the best affect on most of the images. =)


----------



## eMacMan

Been meaning to play with this image for a while but like it just the way it is.

View attachment 18605


----------



## eMacMan

*1906 SF Earthquake*

1906 SF quake captured in color by Frederick Ives

The image separation on these is fairly slight, so the stereo effect is not nearly as dramatic as some of the other images posted here.

Still 3D and colour from over 100 years ago is impressive in itself.


----------



## yeeeha

*Space Station view of anvil clouds*

Astronauts on the International Space Station Expedition 22 took a series of images of a cluster of cumulonimbus clouds and anvils over the Pacific Ocean with the rising Sun shining from a low angle. Time of the images: Jan. 27, 2010 at 19:41:56 UTC and 19:42:15 UTC. Space Station altitude: 346km.

NASA image numbers: ISS022-E-50231 and ISS022-E-50232. Images courtesy: Image Science and Analysis Laboratory, NASA Johnson Space Center. NASA images are in public domain for non-commercial usage.


----------



## eMacMan

*Ice Worm Nest?*



yeeeha said:


> Astronauts on the International Space Station Expedition 22 took a series of images of a cluster of cumulonimbus clouds and anvils over the Pacific Ocean with the rising Sun shining from a low angle. Time of the images: Jan. 27, 2010 at 19:41:56 UTC and 19:42:15 UTC. Space Station altitude: 346km.
> 
> NASA image numbers: ISS022-E-50231 and ISS022-E-50232. Images courtesy: Image Science and Analysis Laboratory, NASA Johnson Space Center. NASA images are in public domain for non-commercial usage.


Great find!:clap:

This one is little harder to see than most, but it is there.

View attachment 19160


----------



## yeeeha

*Re: Ice Worm Nest?*

How large is the hole?


----------



## eMacMan

yeeeha said:


> How large is the hole?


Has recently disappeared altogether but it was about 12 inches across.


----------



## yeeeha

*Hornet nest*

Took this pair of images last Saturday when I went for a walk along the Humber River at the west side of Toronto.


----------



## eMacMan

*Pikes Peak, Garden of the Gods*

Was sorting photos and trying to pick a discard when I realized that despite different zoom ratios I had a pair.

View attachment 19388


----------



## yeeeha

*Re: Pikes Peak, Garden of the Gods*

Nice!


----------



## eMacMan

.


----------



## eMacMan

Arrrgh. Won't take the attachment....tptptptp


----------



## eMacMan

Second try is the charm.

From early June last year. Spring was just as late then.

View attachment 19784


----------



## yeeeha

Cool!



eMacMan said:


> Spring was just as late then.


Are we in Spring?? Where is the warm air and sunshine? Another week of rain and cloudy sky for southern Ontario, yuck.


----------



## yeeeha

*3-D images on International Space Station*

European Space Agency astronaut Paolo Nespoli has posted 3-D images taken with the Fujifilm FinePix REAL 3D W1 camera on the International Space Station and on the ground before his launch. The image set is here. Unfortunately you need the red-blue 3-D glasses to view them.


----------



## eMacMan

Couple of new images. The one shows recent erosion. The abandoned road that disappears into thin air was complete before the spring runoff began.



I am reluctantly removing my photos from this thread. The line in my sig asking that the rights of my photos be respected, was removed without my permission. That removal is a red flag which implies that the implied copyright will not be respected. For that reason these photos have been removed. While I have replaced the sig line, clearly there is no guarantee that it will remain unmolested.


----------



## eMacMan

Been out of town and mostly away from cameras & computers over the past two months. Still did get this nice shot in Browning Montana. Been awhile since I shot this but I believe separation was about two feet.

View attachment 21022


See that the "Upload" button is still located in the next county.


----------



## eMacMan

Image Deleted


----------



## eMacMan

Couple of shots of a tree burl.

I am reluctantly removing my photos from this thread. The line in my sig asking that the rights of my photos be respected, was removed without my permission. That removal is a red flag which implies that the implied copyright will not be respected. For that reason these photos have been removed. While I have replaced the sig line, clearly there is no guarantee that it will remain unmolested.


----------



## Andrew Pratt

I quite like the barn one.


----------



## fjnmusic

Also works for people (internet image; not my own, sadly)


----------



## eMacMan

Andrew Pratt said:


> I quite like the barn one.


Was one of those shots. Have had the camera with me every time I go by that spot waiting for perfect conditions. That morning the lighting was absolutely perfect and I couldn't spare more than a couple of minutes to get the shots, but still turned out quite well despite that.


----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> Also works for people (internet image; not my own, sadly)


Assuming they keep still between shots.


----------



## eMacMan

*Ayers Natural Bridge*

This shot along the top of Ayers Natural Bridge in Wyoming. Only about 2 or 3 feet of separation but a nice exaggerated 3D effect.

View attachment 22031


----------



## eMacMan

*Road Kill*

Surprised this sign stayed down long enough for me to do an AM drive by and get the photo. Just 2 feet of separation on this one, with a 28mm equivalent lens. Really helps to be a bit further back than normal to view this one.

I am reluctantly removing my photos from this thread. The line in my sig asking that the rights of my photos be respected, was removed without my permission. That removal is a red flag implying that the implied copyright will not be respected. Therefore these photos have been removed. While I have replaced the sig line, clearly there is no guarantee that it will remain unmolested.


----------



## eMacMan

*Dirty photo*


----------



## Mythtaken

I love the stereoscopic shots! Very cool stuff. 

I had to give a try myself with a project I just finished. These shots aren't great (sitting on a binder under my desk lamp) but it worked. The two were taken about 63mm apart.


----------



## eMacMan

Mythtaken said:


> I love the stereoscopic shots! Very cool stuff.
> 
> I had to give a try myself with a project I just finished. These shots aren't great (sitting on a binder under my desk lamp) but it worked. The two were taken about 63mm apart.


Nice first try. Usually I go a good deal wider than eye separation, to exaggerate the stereo effect. It does works really well here as this is a true close-up.

Wonderful thing about digital is being able to shoot two or more frames on the same subject to get stereo without driving yourself into bankruptcy.


----------



## SINC

I just wish I could see what others do in the shots here. I get no dimension at all from a single one of them. Must be my vision or something.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> I just wish I could see what others do in the shots here. I get no dimension at all from a single one of them. Must be my vision or something.


Couple of possibilities. One eye much weaker than the other. Also sometimes eyes that are unusually close together can make it difficult.


----------



## Mythtaken

eMacMan said:


> Nice first try. Usually I go a good deal wider than eye separation, to exaggerate the stereo effect. It does works really well here as this is a true close-up.


I tried with more separation (up to 15cm) but this was the only one that worked in that macro shot.



> Wonderful thing about digital is being able to shoot two or more frames on the same subject to get stereo without driving yourself into bankruptcy.


Ain't that the truth! I shudder when I look at the pile of boxes full of negatives and prints I've got stacked in the basement.


----------



## SINC

eMacMan said:


> Couple of possibilities. One eye much weaker than the other. Also sometimes eyes that are unusually close together can make it difficult.


Well, my right eye is much weaker than my left, but my vision with glasses is 20-15.


----------



## jimbotelecom

.


----------



## jimbotelecom

.


----------



## Mythtaken

SINC said:


> Well, my right eye is much weaker than my left, but my vision with glasses is 20-15.


There's a big difference between my left and right too, and my eyesight in general is pretty bad. But it still works for me. It could be your method. 

I like to lean closer to the monitor and look at the line between the images. Let your eyes relax and go out of focus, then slowly move back from the monitor. When you hit the 'sweet spot' the 3d image appears in the middle.

There is also a small percentage of people who just can't do it, no matter how much they try. I believe it has to do with the way your brain processes data from your eyes.


----------



## eMacMan

Hey Jimbo. Great images but this is the stereo image thread. So just to get things back on the left-right track.

View attachment 23459


----------



## jimbotelecom

eMacMan said:


> Hey Jimbo. Great images but this is the stereo image thread. So just to get things back on the left-right track.


Sorry about that. Gone.


----------



## eMacMan

A tough one to bring into stereo, but it does work.

View attachment 23491


----------



## eMacMan

Not sure what the mountain name is, however The Ghost Rider is located a bit further down the mountain.

This is an extreme exaggeration ~300-500 feet of separation. Shot with a 360mm equivalent lens.

View attachment 23838


----------



## eMacMan

Base of a very large box elder tree located in Colorado.
I am reluctantly removing my photos from this thread. The line in my sig asking that the rights of my photos be respected, was removed without my permission. That removal is a red flag implying that the implied copyright will not be respected. Therefore these photos have been removed. While I have replaced the sig line, clearly there is no guarantee that it will remain unmolested.


----------



## winwintoo

Stereogram Art, Giclee Prints by Kinnally - Stereogram Giclees

You folks know about these things. The above link is to an artist's work, so I'm posting a link not the image.

I wonder how he made it. Are the left and right images offset just a smidge?

I draw pretty intricate doodles. If I offset them a bit and placed them side by each, could I achieve this effect? Or is there something else going on?

Thanks, Margaret


----------



## eMacMan

winwintoo said:


> Stereogram Art, Giclee Prints by Kinnally - Stereogram Giclees
> 
> You folks know about these things. The above link is to an artist's work, so I'm posting a link not the image.
> 
> I wonder how he made it. Are the left and right images offset just a smidge?
> 
> I draw pretty intricate doodles. If I offset them a bit and placed them side by each, could I achieve this effect? Or is there something else going on?
> 
> Thanks, Margaret


Kudos to the artist

OTOH I have no idea how the artist did that. Looks like they did it on the "canvas" but again no idea how.


----------



## winwintoo

I did some googling and I think I understand how to make my Zentangle images pop. Please take a look and let me know if this works.

Sinc, I showed some images to friends the other day. Two people could see the 3D right away, the other person couldn't see it at all. Since my cataract surgery, I see everything double so these work well for me 









Margaret


----------



## DriveRovers

Cool images. I have a idea for you to make a special photo ablum by yourself. First go to assemble digital pictures, then download a flipbook maker software, and then import those images into a personalized stunning page flip photo album to publish online.
A flipping book maker is brimming with dynamic flash which can transform your ready-print book to amazing animated one. The pages of a book can be vividly flipped just as turning over pages of a realistic book. And they are well-designed and looking beautiful.


----------



## fjnmusic

winwintoo said:


> I did some googling and I think I understand how to make my Zentangle images pop. Please take a look and let me know if this works.
> 
> Sinc, I showed some images to friends the other day. Two people could see the 3D right away, the other person couldn't see it at all. Since my cataract surgery, I see everything double so these work well for me
> 
> View attachment 24488
> 
> 
> Margaret


It pops, Margaret.


----------



## SINC

No pop here, just two identical images side by side just like all the others in this thread for me.


----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> It pops, Margaret.


It does indeed pop. With the simpler subject I can see how you did it by slightly offsetting one colour in the second image.


----------



## winwintoo

eMacMan said:


> It does indeed pop. With the simpler subject I can see how you did it by slightly offsetting one colour in the second image.


Right! It was fun to do.

Sorry about that Sinc. It's kind of like an old ViewMaster without the gadget.


----------



## eMacMan

No way to really show this except with a stereo image. It's one of those new "Bubble Wrap Generation" pieces of playground equipment, designed to replace those deadly Merry-go-Rounds and Teeter-Totters. 

As yet no-one has managed to hang themselves, but none-the-less I am keeping my fingers crossed.

View attachment 24961


----------



## eMacMan

View attachment 25000


----------



## eMacMan

*The Crags*

Probably about time to let this thread die, as it does not seem to be inspiring anyone else to try what is an incredibly simple low-tech technique for 3D imaging.

Anyways will finish this off with a shot of what for me is a very special place.
View attachment 25912


----------



## Kleles

eMacMan said:


> Probably about time to let this thread die, as it does not seem to be inspiring anyone else to try what is an incredibly simple low-tech technique for 3D imaging.
> 
> Anyways will finish this off with a shot of what for me is a very special place.
> View attachment 25912


It's not because the technique is uninteresting, but, for me and many others, it doesn't work. There is a significant range of binocular fusion skills ("lateral phoria") and for some viewers, especially those who suppress the image from one eye when looking at a (2D) screen, fusing the images is difficult to impossible. 

I have always had this difficulty, but I was delighted when I saw a 3D movie with glasses; I was able to have a 3D experience.


----------



## yeeeha

*Bearded Iris*

Took this image pair in High Park, Toronto on May 26, 2013.

Another way to view the 3-D effect is to download the image pair and split it into two separate images. Next open both images at the same time in Preview or other image viewer, then go into the Slideshow mode. Toggle the two images repeatedly with an arrow key. The back and forth rocking of the flower produces the 3-D effect.


----------



## eMacMan

Like the Iris. 

Tried the Preview trick on one of my shots, but it does bot work for me. Maybe need to try a different pair of images.


----------



## yeeeha

eMacMan, I tried the Preview trick on some of your image pairs but didn't work.

What happened to the iris images was that I took them on a breezy day. I waited for moment of relative calmness and when there was one I fired away to grab two shots in one second. I processed both images just to see if one of them was better. As I toggled the two images in Preview, I noticed that the flower didn't come to a complete stop in swinging so there was a tiny shift in its position relative to the background. That was enough to create the 3-D effect in toggling the images.

I have yet to try the same trick on some of my other 3-D image pairs.


----------



## yeeeha

*Siberian squill*

I tried the Preview trick with an image pair that I took in April 2011. The animated GIF shows the same effect as using the Preview trick. Also attached is the free viewing image pair.


----------



## winwintoo

Have you seen this?

Poppy: Turn Your iPhone into a 3D Camera by Ethan Lowry & Joe Heitzeberg — Kickstarter

Looks pretty interesting.


----------

