Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Taking 3D stereoptic photos

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 6:52:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A while back I found some information on how to take 3D photos on the
newsgroups and it got me interested in making my own. Since then I have
been fun making my own stereoptic images and loving it.

Recently I posted a good number on my photo website. These are the
kinds that you cross your eyes to see. Here is the address:

http://kerekesphotos.com/kp-gallery-public-3d.shtml

Enjoy!

Charlie
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 8:22:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

N,

Don't feel too bad -- I have not been able to view stereo photos using
the parallel method. Just the other day I was reading more about it
(referring to those images composed of dots), and I decided to try the
parallel method on my photos. I printed a pair on the correct sides and
spent about 30 minutes straining. Needles to say, I had no luck seeing
them.

Is this even possible with photos? It seems that the eyes need to be
perfectly parallel for this to work. Can you point me to some stereo
photos on the net that you have been able to see using the parallel
method? I'd like to try again.

Charlie
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:03:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken,

In my very unscientific estimation, about half of the people who try
can see the images. Some of my friends who tried unsuccessfully gave up
too soon, lowering the statistics.

Charlie
Related resources
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 10:18:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie, those look like great shots, but unfortunately I have never been
able to see cross-eyed stereo. I have no problem at all free viewing
parallel stereo pairs, as long as the images are not too large (up to 2 3/8"
separation of homologous points is easy, and I can get to about 3" with some
effort). I've triedthe looking-at-a-finger-first trick for the cross-eyed
method and it still doesn't help. As soon as I try to merge the stereo pair,
my eyes go into parallel. I understand the advantages of cross-eyed but I
just can't do it. I wonder what percentage of people can.

N.


"Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113688341.801740.249790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>A while back I found some information on how to take 3D photos on the
> newsgroups and it got me interested in making my own. Since then I have
> been fun making my own stereoptic images and loving it.
>
> Recently I posted a good number on my photo website. These are the
> kinds that you cross your eyes to see. Here is the address:
>
> http://kerekesphotos.com/kp-gallery-public-3d.shtml
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Charlie
>
April 16, 2005 10:32:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Interesting photos and neat effect. I can hold the 3D image about 5
seconds; however I spend the next three minutes trying to uncross my eyes.
:>)

"Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in message
news:9J6dnam73f3YEvzfRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> Charlie, those look like great shots, but unfortunately I have never been
> able to see cross-eyed stereo. I have no problem at all free viewing
> parallel stereo pairs, as long as the images are not too large (up to 2
> 3/8" separation of homologous points is easy, and I can get to about 3"
> with some effort). I've triedthe looking-at-a-finger-first trick for the
> cross-eyed method and it still doesn't help. As soon as I try to merge the
> stereo pair, my eyes go into parallel. I understand the advantages of
> cross-eyed but I just can't do it. I wonder what percentage of people can.
>
> N.
>
>
> "Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1113688341.801740.249790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>A while back I found some information on how to take 3D photos on the
>> newsgroups and it got me interested in making my own. Since then I have
>> been fun making my own stereoptic images and loving it.
>>
>> Recently I posted a good number on my photo website. These are the
>> kinds that you cross your eyes to see. Here is the address:
>>
>> http://kerekesphotos.com/kp-gallery-public-3d.shtml
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 11:33:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks Charlie,
I copied the pictures and swapped the images and could see it much better.
It looks like a stereo picture of a model train either way.
If you reduce the distance between lenses by half it might look more real.
Fun to play with.
Gene

Charles Kerekes wrote:

> A while back I found some information on how to take 3D photos on the
> newsgroups and it got me interested in making my own. Since then I have
> been fun making my own stereoptic images and loving it.
>
> Recently I posted a good number on my photo website. These are the
> kinds that you cross your eyes to see. Here is the address:
>
> http://kerekesphotos.com/kp-gallery-public-3d.shtml
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Charlie
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 1:29:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 16 Apr 2005 16:22:53 -0700, Charles Kerekes wrote:

> Don't feel too bad -- I have not been able to view stereo photos using
> the parallel method. Just the other day I was reading more about it
> (referring to those images composed of dots), and I decided to try the
> parallel method on my photos. I printed a pair on the correct sides and
> spent about 30 minutes straining. Needles to say, I had no luck seeing
> them.
> Is this even possible with photos? It seems that the eyes need to be
> perfectly parallel for this to work. Can you point me to some stereo
> photos on the net that you have been able to see using the parallel
> method? I'd like to try again.

You can use your own photos, if I understand what you mean by the
"parallel method". I saved one of your photos (the one dominated
by an Xmas type tree, 20050409_013_stereo_both_std.jpg). Cropped it
to get two separate left and right side images. Using a DTP program
I placed the pictures side by side, twice. Once in the original
order, and again in reversed order, with the left side picture
appearing on the right, etc.

With the original order, the proper stereo effect required the
normal crossing of the eyes. When looking at the other, reversed
pair, to see the proper stereo image my eyes had to be aimed
parallel, as if I was looking at something at a great distance,
while continuing to focus on the plane of the nearby monitor.

One interesting thing I noticed was that the reversed order
resulting in a more natural looking 3D picture. With the original
order, the stereoscopic effect was too extreme. Objects seemed to
have little depth, as if, for instance, the tree was represented by
a picture of a tree on a cardboard cutout. Objects closer or
further behind the tree appeared as such, but they also seemed two
dimensional, lacking depth. When looking at the reversed pair, the
tree looked much more natural. I got a better sense of the it's
depth. I can't explain why it appeared this way. Perhaps when the
two pictures of the scene were taken there was too much separation
between the camera's positions. Or not enough. Or neither, maybe
that's just the difference between the parallel and crossed-eye
methods.

BTW, I originally had the left and right pairs separated on the
screen by a little less than an inch. It was difficult to view
using the "parallel" method until the gap was removed and the
pictures were placed side-by-side.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 2:31:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rev. Mills,

Wow, I did not know wall-eye was possible. I shrunk the images down
small so they matched the distance of my puplis and I was able to see
them in the reversed order. How cool! You were right -- this is more
comfortable than cross-eyed.

But, when I enlarged the images just a little, I was no longer able to
see 3D. I suppose because the larger images require my eyes to move
fartther away from each other.

Do you have any tips on how to separate my eyes?

Charlie
April 17, 2005 2:58:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Neat pictures and effect, better than the blue-red for good 3D.

Jean

"Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1113688341.801740.249790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> A while back I found some information on how to take 3D photos on the
> newsgroups and it got me interested in making my own. Since then I have
> been fun making my own stereoptic images and loving it.
>
> Recently I posted a good number on my photo website. These are the
> kinds that you cross your eyes to see. Here is the address:
>
> http://kerekesphotos.com/kp-gallery-public-3d.shtml
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Charlie
>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 3:41:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nostrobino wrote:
> Charlie, those look like great shots, but unfortunately I have never been
> able to see cross-eyed stereo. I have no problem at all free viewing
> parallel stereo pairs, as long as the images are not too large (up to 2 3/8"
> separation of homologous points is easy, and I can get to about 3" with some
> effort). I've triedthe looking-at-a-finger-first trick for the cross-eyed
> method and it still doesn't help. As soon as I try to merge the stereo pair,
> my eyes go into parallel. I understand the advantages of cross-eyed but I
> just can't do it. I wonder what percentage of people can.
>
> N.

Hi...

Nor can I... tried my best, but all that's there is two
pictures.

Ken
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 4:43:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:41:39 GMT, Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
>
> Nostrobino wrote:
>> Charlie, those look like great shots, but unfortunately I have never been
>> able to see cross-eyed stereo. I have no problem at all free viewing
>> parallel stereo pairs, as long as the images are not too large (up to 2 3/8"
>> separation of homologous points is easy, and I can get to about 3" with some
>> effort). I've triedthe looking-at-a-finger-first trick for the cross-eyed
>> method and it still doesn't help. As soon as I try to merge the stereo pair,
>> my eyes go into parallel. I understand the advantages of cross-eyed but I
>> just can't do it. I wonder what percentage of people can.

> Nor can I... tried my best, but all that's there is two
> pictures.

Well, it sorta depends on your screen resolution, and screen size.
I doubt that _anyone_ with a 21 inch monitor can view those in stereo.

And, you should _not_ be viewing such images _cross-eyed_ .
You need to view them _wall-eyed_ .
IMO, wall-eyed viewing is less of a strain.

But, it seems your images are reversed for viewing -- the left image
being on the right side, and vicey-versy. So, only cross-eyed
viewing would render the perspective properly.

On my 17" monitor at 1024x768 I can "lock in" your pictures when
sitting back approx 5 feet from the screen -- using wall-eyed
view --- yielding 'inverted' perspective(s).

The best design for such images (to be view without optics -- e.g.
a stereoscope) is to set the center-to-center distance of the two
images to not much more than the IPD (inter-pupilary distance) of
the viewer. Of course, that pretty much restricts the size of the
images that can be used.

Jonesy
--
| Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
| Gunnison, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | OS/2 __
| 7,703' -- 2,345m | config.com | DM68mn SK
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 5:04:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie,
I can view both wall-eye AND cross-eye, but find wall-eye to be more
comfortable. I guess that is because I have been able to wall-eye since
I was about 6 or 7 years old and have been able to cross-eye for only
the last 2 or 3 years (I happen to be 58). I have been doing 3D
photography for about 11 years now and your pics look nice. In #2, the
engine is either moving too fast or too close to the camera and out of
focus, but still a nice pic. Keep up the good work and get a nice
Stereo Realist, and you will do much better. I have 3 of them and love
them.
Rev. Terry Mills


Charles Kerekes wrote:
> A while back I found some information on how to take 3D photos on the
> newsgroups and it got me interested in making my own. Since then I have
> been fun making my own stereoptic images and loving it.
>
> Recently I posted a good number on my photo website. These are the
> kinds that you cross your eyes to see. Here is the address:
>
> http://kerekesphotos.com/kp-gallery-public-3d.shtml
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Charlie
>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 8:20:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Does it help if you place a piece of A4 cardboard vertically perpendicular
to the screen so that the bottom edge of the card runs down the split of the
photos and the top edge runs down the length of your nose? That way you
would have eye seeing 1 image but each eye sees a different image. That's
how most 3d viewers of yore used to work.

I'd try it but I'm at work and I'll get silly looks. ( Hey, it's quiet.
-) )



"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Toh8e.1040796$6l.510107@pd7tw2no...
>
>
> Nostrobino wrote:
>> Charlie, those look like great shots, but unfortunately I have never been
>> able to see cross-eyed stereo. I have no problem at all free viewing
>> parallel stereo pairs, as long as the images are not too large (up to 2
>> 3/8" separation of homologous points is easy, and I can get to about 3"
>> with some effort). I've triedthe looking-at-a-finger-first trick for the
>> cross-eyed method and it still doesn't help. As soon as I try to merge
>> the stereo pair, my eyes go into parallel. I understand the advantages of
>> cross-eyed but I just can't do it. I wonder what percentage of people
>> can.
>>
>> N.
>
> Hi...
>
> Nor can I... tried my best, but all that's there is two
> pictures.
>
> Ken
>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 8:35:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

werdan wrote:

> Does it help if you place a piece of A4 cardboard vertically perpendicular
> to the screen so that the bottom edge of the card runs down the split of the
> photos and the top edge runs down the length of your nose? That way you
> would have eye seeing 1 image but each eye sees a different image. That's
> how most 3d viewers of yore used to work.
>
> I'd try it but I'm at work and I'll get silly looks. ( Hey, it's quiet.
> -) )
>
>
>
> "Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Toh8e.1040796$6l.510107@pd7tw2no...
>
>>
>>Nostrobino wrote:
>>
>>>Charlie, those look like great shots, but unfortunately I have never been
>>>able to see cross-eyed stereo. I have no problem at all free viewing
>>>parallel stereo pairs, as long as the images are not too large (up to 2
>>>3/8" separation of homologous points is easy, and I can get to about 3"
>>>with some effort). I've triedthe looking-at-a-finger-first trick for the
>>>cross-eyed method and it still doesn't help. As soon as I try to merge
>>>the stereo pair, my eyes go into parallel. I understand the advantages of
>>>cross-eyed but I just can't do it. I wonder what percentage of people
>>>can.
>>>
>>>N.
>>
>>Hi...
>>
>>Nor can I... tried my best, but all that's there is two
>>pictures.
>>
>>Ken
>>


Hi...

Tried it; tried everything. Using a sheet of stiff paper
creates an unusual effect - still see two seperate images,
but the one on the left is much blurrier, waaaay out of focus.
(I know it isn't really)

The cross your eyes by watching your own finger does a bit
better... I can "create" a third center image, but as soon
as I try to "look at it" it disappears :) 

Guess I make a poor tester, getting on in years, and stroke
damaged as well. :) 

I'm at home - but I got silly looks anyway :) 

Ken
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 9:39:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Reply to the .sig address <NOSPAM_bit-bucket@config.com> writes:

>And, you should _not_ be viewing such images _cross-eyed_ .
>You need to view them _wall-eyed_ .
>IMO, wall-eyed viewing is less of a strain.

That seems to vary a lot with the individual. I can do cross-eyed
stereo fairly easily, while I usually can't fuse parallel-arranged
images. And true wall-eyed, where the image separation is greater than
my eye separation, is just hopeless.

I have seen some 3D work presented with both eyes stored in a single
JPEG with a .jps (jpeg stereo) extension, and using viewing software
that will separate the two eyes and present them to you crossed,
parallel, in red/green anaglyph, field sequential for use with LCD
glasses, and just about any other variant you can imagine. By
separating storage and viewing, each viewer can choose what works best
for them with their available hardware.

Dave
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 9:49:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

werdan <footrotdog@that.gmail.fad.com> wrote:

: Does it help if you place a piece of A4 cardboard vertically
: perpendicular to the screen so that the bottom edge of the card runs
: down the split of the photos and the top edge runs down the length of
: your nose? That way you would have eye seeing 1 image but each eye sees
: a different image. That's how most 3d viewers of yore used to work.

: I'd try it but I'm at work and I'll get silly looks. ( Hey, it's quiet.
: -) )

If you do that you will have to reverse the two images. The crossed eye
method means that the left eye is looking at the right image and
vise-versa. But if you use a divider to seperate the images (as in the old
stereopticon viewers) your right eye will look at the right image. So if
you remake the old imager and print these images to be placed in the
viewer, you would have to reverse the placement of the two images. One
thing about the old viewers, they had a pair of lenses to converge the two
images into one virtual spacial location and to allow the eyes to focus on
a "card" that is very close to the face.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 9:57:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charles Kerekes <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Rev. Mills,

: Wow, I did not know wall-eye was possible. I shrunk the images down
: small so they matched the distance of my puplis and I was able to see
: them in the reversed order. How cool! You were right -- this is more
: comfortable than cross-eyed.

: But, when I enlarged the images just a little, I was no longer able to
: see 3D. I suppose because the larger images require my eyes to move
: fartther away from each other.

: Do you have any tips on how to separate my eyes?

: Charlie

No, but I found that the correlation of interocular distance to photo
seperation is less critical when you set back further from the screen. I
did find that too far away also reduces the impact of the 3-d. So it may
be helpful to move your head closer and further away as you try to lock in
the image.

I did notice that if I kept my mouse on the "next" button and just kept my
eyes crossed when changing from one image to the next, I didn't have to
"come out" and then "back into 3d focus" for each image. It worked for me,
YMMV. :) 

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 10:02:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randy Berbaum" <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news:D 3stcn$tkr$1@wildfire.prairienet.org...
>
> If you do that you will have to reverse the two images. The crossed eye
> method means that the left eye is looking at the right image and
> vise-versa. But if you use a divider to seperate the images (as in the old
> stereopticon viewers) your right eye will look at the right image. So if
> you remake the old imager and print these images to be placed in the
> viewer, you would have to reverse the placement of the two images. One
> thing about the old viewers, they had a pair of lenses to converge the two
> images into one virtual spacial location and to allow the eyes to focus on
> a "card" that is very close to the face.
>

It was just a thought. Thanks Randy for clearing that up.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 1:15:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don,

May I ask where you got your stereoptican from? I'm thinking of getting
one.

Charlie
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 2:39:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Neat thing about digital is how easy it is to edit. While I can use
crosseyed method okay, I also have a stereoptican. It is easy in most
digital editors to cut and move the left image to the right of the right
image, converting it back to a normal (not crossed) viewing image.

Nostrobino wrote:
> Charlie, those look like great shots, but unfortunately I have never been
> able to see cross-eyed stereo. I have no problem at all free viewing
> parallel stereo pairs, as long as the images are not too large (up to 2 3/8"
> separation of homologous points is easy, and I can get to about 3" with some
> effort). I've triedthe looking-at-a-finger-first trick for the cross-eyed
> method and it still doesn't help. As soon as I try to merge the stereo pair,
> my eyes go into parallel. I understand the advantages of cross-eyed but I
> just can't do it. I wonder what percentage of people can.
>
> N.
>
>
> "Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1113688341.801740.249790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>A while back I found some information on how to take 3D photos on the
>>newsgroups and it got me interested in making my own. Since then I have
>>been fun making my own stereoptic images and loving it.
>>
>>Recently I posted a good number on my photo website. These are the
>>kinds that you cross your eyes to see. Here is the address:
>>
>>http://kerekesphotos.com/kp-gallery-public-3d.shtml
>>
>>Enjoy!
>>
>>Charlie
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 2:44:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charles Kerekes wrote:
> N,
>
> Don't feel too bad -- I have not been able to view stereo photos using
> the parallel method. Just the other day I was reading more about it
> (referring to those images composed of dots), and I decided to try the
> parallel method on my photos. I printed a pair on the correct sides and
> spent about 30 minutes straining. Needles to say, I had no luck seeing
> them.
>
> Is this even possible with photos? It seems that the eyes need to be
> perfectly parallel for this to work. Can you point me to some stereo
> photos on the net that you have been able to see using the parallel
> method? I'd like to try again.
>
> Charlie
>
Being able to view stereo pairs unaided takes a lot of practice and
training. Photo recee people can do it, but most of us have to
practice, practice, practice. There are a number of aids to viewing
pairs, however. I'd get started with an optical aid.


Then, I believe the crosseyed method is easiest to learn. When you get
good at that, you can start to practice unaided viewing of non-crossed
pairs. It IS hard, and takes a lot of work before you can see it.

One trick is to go outside, and look over the top of the pair, so your
eyes are converging on something near infinity. Also, the bright
outdoor light stops down your pupils, giving you more depth of field.
Now lower the gase to the stereo image, straining hard to keep the eyes
from reconverging.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 9:30:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm responding to the title of the thread...."Taking". There is
a method that I have used successfully in the past with a
standard 35mm camera to take stereo pairs. It's simple enough
for one or two tho' it might produce eyestrain in viewing a lot!
Shift your weight to one foot while holding the camera to your
eye, take the picture, shift the weight to the other foot
without removing the camera from your eye and take another
picture. It really works for 35mm slides viewed with a stereo
viewer and might work if the pairs were printed!


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 6:20:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie,
No real suggestions. I've been doing this so long it just seems natural
to me. I have been able to diverge my eyes a bit, but then I DO get a
headache. But sitting about 3-4 feet from my 18" monitor, I can easily
fuse most 3D pics wall-eye. Just relax, and let your eyes drift to
infinity, the more you relax, the easier it becomes. If you tense up,
it becomes much more difficult.
Terry

Charles Kerekes wrote:
> Rev. Mills,
>
> Wow, I did not know wall-eye was possible. I shrunk the images down
> small so they matched the distance of my puplis and I was able to see
> them in the reversed order. How cool! You were right -- this is more
> comfortable than cross-eyed.
>
> But, when I enlarged the images just a little, I was no longer able to
> see 3D. I suppose because the larger images require my eyes to move
> fartther away from each other.
>
> Do you have any tips on how to separate my eyes?
>
> Charlie
>
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 12:46:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James Silverton wrote:
> I'm responding to the title of the thread...."Taking". There is a
> method that I have used successfully in the past with a standard 35mm
> camera to take stereo pairs. It's simple enough for one or two tho' it
> might produce eyestrain in viewing a lot! Shift your weight to one foot
> while holding the camera to your eye, take the picture, shift the weight
> to the other foot without removing the camera from your eye and take
> another picture. It really works for 35mm slides viewed with a stereo
> viewer and might work if the pairs were printed!
>
>
To ensure the accurate interocular eye distance shift for closer
subjects, I made a simple tripod attachment. It was a rail made from
aluminum bar stock with an angle on bottom to mount to tripod screw. A
little fabricated U-channel piece set over the rail. I marked the eye
seperation distance on the rail. I take picture on one side of rail,
slide camera to mark on other side, and shoot second shot.

For landscapes, distance is not critical- in fact exaggerated distance
works well. However, for subjects within about fifty feet, you need to
hold distance reasonably well. I also marked reduced seperation
distance for closeups. If you use real eye distance for closeups (macro
work) the resulting pair gives people a headache due to too much
convergence. A smaller seperation makes macro pairs easier to use.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 6:50:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James Silverton wrote:
> I'm responding to the title of the thread...."Taking". There
> is
> a method that I have used successfully in the past with a
> standard 35mm camera to take stereo pairs. It's simple enough
> for one or two tho' it might produce eyestrain in viewing a
> lot!
> Shift your weight to one foot while holding the camera to your
> eye, take the picture, shift the weight to the other foot
> without removing the camera from your eye and take another
> picture. It really works for 35mm slides viewed with a stereo
> viewer and might work if the pairs were printed!

In case I am accused of plagiarism (g), I don't claim to have
invented this technique. Now that I think of it, there is a
name: the Cha-cha method from the motion :-)


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 9:30:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James,

I have been using that method myself. I saw it posted on the newsgroup
a while back, but I don't remember who posted it. Maybe it was one of
your old posts.

Charlie
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:30:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113693773.097532.162170@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> N,
>
> Don't feel too bad -- I have not been able to view stereo photos using
> the parallel method. Just the other day I was reading more about it
> (referring to those images composed of dots), and I decided to try the
> parallel method on my photos. I printed a pair on the correct sides and
> spent about 30 minutes straining. Needles to say, I had no luck seeing
> them.
>
> Is this even possible with photos? It seems that the eyes need to be
> perfectly parallel for this to work. Can you point me to some stereo
> photos on the net that you have been able to see using the parallel
> method? I'd like to try again.
>
> Charlie

Charlie, my apologies for being so late getting back to you. I neglected to
flag this thread and just noticed it again today.

The eyes don't have to be perfectly parallel, but nearly so. Human adult eye
separation is usually around 65 mm or so, a little over 2 1/2 inches. Stereo
pairs printed in magazines for free viewing generally had a separation of 2
3/8 inches for homologous points, so there was a little convergence of the
eyes' axes but not very much.

Stereo pairs in the old-fashioned Holmes stereoscope format have been
reprinted by the hundreds, and also printed in several books on stereo
photography. The original stereo cards were about 3 by 7 inches, the images
about 3 inches square and of course also having a 3-inch stereo separation.
It is possible to free-view these too but it's difficult and uncomfortable,
as the eyes have to *diverge* slightly in order to merge the stereo pair.
The only really good way for most people to view these is with an optical
device which duplicates the function of the old Holmes stereoscope. A
company called Reel 3-D used to sell these devices very cheap, 10 for a few
dollars as I recall. I'm sure the company is still in business (do a Google
search for it) but the last time I looked they didn't have that particular
device in stock. What you want is a *prismatic* device which automatically
refocuses and diverges your lines of sight, and that's what that does. There
are also non-prismatic stereo devices which just change focus distance,
essentially two magnifying lenses side by side. These work also but the
images have to be slightly smaller, not over 2.5" or so square in order for
the eyes not to be forced to diverge.

Stereo pairs on the Web for parallel viewing are usually not very
satisfactory because of the low resolution of the computer monitor. If
they're small enough to free-view in this way they're too small to have much
detail.

If you reverse your own images (preferably printed out, not on the monitor)
and keep them under 2.5" in size you should be able to free-view them. The
trick is to stare at them and let your eyes go parallel as if looking at a
distant object, but staying in focus on the images. Once you get the hang of
it it's easy to do, but it's much easier with one of those cheap optical
devices.

N.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:35:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:0Il8e.1041509$Xk.487235@pd7tw3no...
>
[ . . . ]
>
> Hi...
>
> Tried it; tried everything. Using a sheet of stiff paper
> creates an unusual effect - still see two seperate images,
> but the one on the left is much blurrier, waaaay out of focus.
> (I know it isn't really)
>
> The cross your eyes by watching your own finger does a bit
> better... I can "create" a third center image, but as soon
> as I try to "look at it" it disappears :) 

That is my own experience exactly. I have just given up on cross-eyed
stereo.

N.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:42:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:1113752376.627ee203176b7e810af50ed04c54a3b5@teranews...
> Neat thing about digital is how easy it is to edit. While I can use
> crosseyed method okay, I also have a stereoptican.

You mean stereoscope. There has been a good deal of unnecessary confusion
about these terms, but a stereopticon (correct spelling) has nothing to do
with stereo imaging, the name notwithstanding. Unfortunately at least one
manufacturer in recent years sold a stereoscope advertised as a
stereopticon. Grrrrr. That's the sort of thing that makes the language go to
hell.

The stereopticon was a kind of 19th-century slide projector. It did not do
anything in 3-D.


> It is easy in most digital editors to cut and move the left image to the
> right of the right image, converting it back to a normal (not crossed)
> viewing image.

Yes, that's true.

N.


>
> Nostrobino wrote:
>> Charlie, those look like great shots, but unfortunately I have never been
>> able to see cross-eyed stereo. I have no problem at all free viewing
>> parallel stereo pairs, as long as the images are not too large (up to 2
>> 3/8" separation of homologous points is easy, and I can get to about 3"
>> with some effort). I've triedthe looking-at-a-finger-first trick for the
>> cross-eyed method and it still doesn't help. As soon as I try to merge
>> the stereo pair, my eyes go into parallel. I understand the advantages of
>> cross-eyed but I just can't do it. I wonder what percentage of people
>> can.
>>
>> N.
>>
>>
>> "Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1113688341.801740.249790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>A while back I found some information on how to take 3D photos on the
>>>newsgroups and it got me interested in making my own. Since then I have
>>>been fun making my own stereoptic images and loving it.
>>>
>>>Recently I posted a good number on my photo website. These are the
>>>kinds that you cross your eyes to see. Here is the address:
>>>
>>>http://kerekesphotos.com/kp-gallery-public-3d.shtml
>>>
>>>Enjoy!
>>>
>>>Charlie
>>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:46:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113754521.553861.316190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Don,
>
> May I ask where you got your stereoptican from? I'm thinking of getting
> one.
>
> Charlie

Stereoscope, not stereopticon ("stereoptican").

Do a search on Google and you should find several sellers of stereoscopes.
Reel 3-D has been in the business of stereo photography accessories for
decades, though I don't know what they have right now.

N.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 1:35:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nostrobino wrote:
> "Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1113693773.097532.162170@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>N,
>>
>>Don't feel too bad -- I have not been able to view stereo photos using
>>the parallel method. Just the other day I was reading more about it
>>(referring to those images composed of dots), and I decided to try the
>>parallel method on my photos. I printed a pair on the correct sides and
>>spent about 30 minutes straining. Needles to say, I had no luck seeing
>>them.
>>
>>Is this even possible with photos? It seems that the eyes need to be
>>perfectly parallel for this to work. Can you point me to some stereo
>>photos on the net that you have been able to see using the parallel
>>method? I'd like to try again.
>>
>>Charlie
>
>
> Charlie, my apologies for being so late getting back to you. I neglected to
> flag this thread and just noticed it again today.
>
> The eyes don't have to be perfectly parallel, but nearly so. Human adult eye
> separation is usually around 65 mm or so, a little over 2 1/2 inches. Stereo
> pairs printed in magazines for free viewing generally had a separation of 2
> 3/8 inches for homologous points, so there was a little convergence of the
> eyes' axes but not very much.
>
> Stereo pairs in the old-fashioned Holmes stereoscope format have been
> reprinted by the hundreds, and also printed in several books on stereo
> photography. The original stereo cards were about 3 by 7 inches, the images
> about 3 inches square and of course also having a 3-inch stereo separation.
> It is possible to free-view these too but it's difficult and uncomfortable,
> as the eyes have to *diverge* slightly in order to merge the stereo pair.
> The only really good way for most people to view these is with an optical
> device which duplicates the function of the old Holmes stereoscope. A
> company called Reel 3-D used to sell these devices very cheap, 10 for a few
> dollars as I recall. I'm sure the company is still in business (do a Google
> search for it) but the last time I looked they didn't have that particular
> device in stock. What you want is a *prismatic* device which automatically
> refocuses and diverges your lines of sight, and that's what that does. There
> are also non-prismatic stereo devices which just change focus distance,
> essentially two magnifying lenses side by side. These work also but the
> images have to be slightly smaller, not over 2.5" or so square in order for
> the eyes not to be forced to diverge.
>
> Stereo pairs on the Web for parallel viewing are usually not very
> satisfactory because of the low resolution of the computer monitor. If
> they're small enough to free-view in this way they're too small to have much
> detail.
>
> If you reverse your own images (preferably printed out, not on the monitor)
> and keep them under 2.5" in size you should be able to free-view them. The
> trick is to stare at them and let your eyes go parallel as if looking at a
> distant object, but staying in focus on the images. Once you get the hang of
> it it's easy to do, but it's much easier with one of those cheap optical
> devices.
>
> N.
>
>
I have one of the old Stereopticans (uses a cardboard slide with prints
mounted on it. I have created a template in my graphics program that
has two adjacent frames the right size for the stereoptican. I then
take images and paste the two digital images into the appropriate (left
or right frame). I print it out, then glue the printout to a piece of
card stock for mounting in the stereoptican. Saves having to size and
position each image each time I want to print out a pair.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 1:37:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nostrobino wrote:
> "Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
> news:1113752376.627ee203176b7e810af50ed04c54a3b5@teranews...
>
>>Neat thing about digital is how easy it is to edit. While I can use
>>crosseyed method okay, I also have a stereoptican.
>
>
> You mean stereoscope. There has been a good deal of unnecessary confusion
> about these terms, but a stereopticon (correct spelling) has nothing to do
> with stereo imaging, the name notwithstanding. Unfortunately at least one
> manufacturer in recent years sold a stereoscope advertised as a
> stereopticon. Grrrrr. That's the sort of thing that makes the language go to
> hell.
>
> The stereopticon was a kind of 19th-century slide projector. It did not do
> anything in 3-D.
>
>
>
>>It is easy in most digital editors to cut and move the left image to the
>>right of the right image, converting it back to a normal (not crossed)
>>viewing image.
>
>
> Yes, that's true.
>
> N.
>
>
>
>>Nostrobino wrote:
>>
>>>Charlie, those look like great shots, but unfortunately I have never been
>>>able to see cross-eyed stereo. I have no problem at all free viewing
>>>parallel stereo pairs, as long as the images are not too large (up to 2
>>>3/8" separation of homologous points is easy, and I can get to about 3"
>>>with some effort). I've triedthe looking-at-a-finger-first trick for the
>>>cross-eyed method and it still doesn't help. As soon as I try to merge
>>>the stereo pair, my eyes go into parallel. I understand the advantages of
>>>cross-eyed but I just can't do it. I wonder what percentage of people
>>>can.
>>>
>>>N.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1113688341.801740.249790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>A while back I found some information on how to take 3D photos on the
>>>>newsgroups and it got me interested in making my own. Since then I have
>>>>been fun making my own stereoptic images and loving it.
>>>>
>>>>Recently I posted a good number on my photo website. These are the
>>>>kinds that you cross your eyes to see. Here is the address:
>>>>
>>>>http://kerekesphotos.com/kp-gallery-public-3d.shtml
>>>>
>>>>Enjoy!
>>>>
>>>>Charlie
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Ah, okay. Many thanks for correcting this for me. You are right- it is
a common mistake- I call it that 'cause I saw it referred to as such in
a photography book once.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 1:40:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nostrobino wrote:
> "Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1113754521.553861.316190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Don,
>>
>>May I ask where you got your stereoptican from? I'm thinking of getting
>>one.
>>
>>Charlie
>
>
> Stereoscope, not stereopticon ("stereoptican").
>
> Do a search on Google and you should find several sellers of stereoscopes.
> Reel 3-D has been in the business of stereo photography accessories for
> decades, though I don't know what they have right now.
>
> N.
>
>
I just got a Porters catalog, and they are selling what looks like a
good deal I might try. It is a camera and viewer package. Camera is a
film camera, but still looks neat. The camera is a fixed focus (box
camera) thing, but the system uses 4 x 6 prints. The downside is that
the print makes the fused image a 4 x 3, portrait style format. I guess
I could live with that. The attractive thing is that the whole thing-
camera and viewer- is forty bucks!
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 3:20:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:V2tae.7$QL5.276@news.uswest.net...
> Nostrobino wrote:
>> "Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1113693773.097532.162170@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>N,
>>>
>>>Don't feel too bad -- I have not been able to view stereo photos using
>>>the parallel method. Just the other day I was reading more about it
>>>(referring to those images composed of dots), and I decided to try the
>>>parallel method on my photos. I printed a pair on the correct sides and
>>>spent about 30 minutes straining. Needles to say, I had no luck seeing
>>>them.
>>>
>>>Is this even possible with photos? It seems that the eyes need to be
>>>perfectly parallel for this to work. Can you point me to some stereo
>>>photos on the net that you have been able to see using the parallel
>>>method? I'd like to try again.
>>>
>>>Charlie
>>
>>
>> Charlie, my apologies for being so late getting back to you. I neglected
>> to flag this thread and just noticed it again today.
>>
>> The eyes don't have to be perfectly parallel, but nearly so. Human adult
>> eye separation is usually around 65 mm or so, a little over 2 1/2 inches.
>> Stereo pairs printed in magazines for free viewing generally had a
>> separation of 2 3/8 inches for homologous points, so there was a little
>> convergence of the eyes' axes but not very much.
>>
>> Stereo pairs in the old-fashioned Holmes stereoscope format have been
>> reprinted by the hundreds, and also printed in several books on stereo
>> photography. The original stereo cards were about 3 by 7 inches, the
>> images about 3 inches square and of course also having a 3-inch stereo
>> separation. It is possible to free-view these too but it's difficult and
>> uncomfortable, as the eyes have to *diverge* slightly in order to merge
>> the stereo pair. The only really good way for most people to view these
>> is with an optical device which duplicates the function of the old Holmes
>> stereoscope. A company called Reel 3-D used to sell these devices very
>> cheap, 10 for a few dollars as I recall. I'm sure the company is still in
>> business (do a Google search for it) but the last time I looked they
>> didn't have that particular device in stock. What you want is a
>> *prismatic* device which automatically refocuses and diverges your lines
>> of sight, and that's what that does. There are also non-prismatic stereo
>> devices which just change focus distance, essentially two magnifying
>> lenses side by side. These work also but the images have to be slightly
>> smaller, not over 2.5" or so square in order for the eyes not to be
>> forced to diverge.
>>
>> Stereo pairs on the Web for parallel viewing are usually not very
>> satisfactory because of the low resolution of the computer monitor. If
>> they're small enough to free-view in this way they're too small to have
>> much detail.
>>
>> If you reverse your own images (preferably printed out, not on the
>> monitor) and keep them under 2.5" in size you should be able to free-view
>> them. The trick is to stare at them and let your eyes go parallel as if
>> looking at a distant object, but staying in focus on the images. Once you
>> get the hang of it it's easy to do, but it's much easier with one of
>> those cheap optical devices.
>>
>> N.
> I have one of the old Stereopticans (uses a cardboard slide with prints
> mounted on it. I have created a template in my graphics program that has
> two adjacent frames the right size for the stereoptican. I then take
> images and paste the two digital images into the appropriate (left or
> right frame). I print it out, then glue the printout to a piece of card
> stock for mounting in the stereoptican. Saves having to size and position
> each image each time I want to print out a pair.

That's a good idea, and I've been meaning to get around to doing something
similar myself.

Just one correction, Don: the device is called a stereoscope, not a
"stereoptican." I think you mean stereopticon, which is what some people
(including one marketer, I'm sorry to say) call a stereoscope. The
stereopticon was actually a kind of 19th-century slide projector, which
despite the name had absolutely nothing to do with stereo photography.

The best and *easiest* way to make stereo photos that I've found is to use
one of the Pentax Optio cameras that have a 3D mode. The way this works is
that the camera first takes the left half of the stereo pair, then you shift
the camera slightly to the right and take the right half. I have an Optio
4si and an Optio 750Z, both of which (and some other Pentax models) have
this feature. There are guidelines on the LCD monitor when the camera is in
this mode, and the left-hand image stays on the monitor while you're
composing the right-hand shot, which helps a lot.

Then I just take the SD card into Wal-Mart and make standard 4x6 prints on
their Fuji machine. This produces ready-made stereo cards with no further
effort on my part. However, because the stereo separation is 3 inches on the
print you do need a prismatic viewer; that's just a bit too far apart to
free-view them comfortably. Such handheld viewers used to be very cheap from
Reel 3-D (you could buy a bag of 10 for a few dollars), but I haven't
checked their site lately.

N.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 3:29:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:m7tae.7$fQ.587@news.uswest.net...
> Nostrobino wrote:
>> "Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1113754521.553861.316190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Don,
>>>
>>>May I ask where you got your stereoptican from? I'm thinking of getting
>>>one.
>>>
>>>Charlie
>>
>>
>> Stereoscope, not stereopticon ("stereoptican").
>>
>> Do a search on Google and you should find several sellers of
>> stereoscopes. Reel 3-D has been in the business of stereo photography
>> accessories for decades, though I don't know what they have right now.
>>
>> N.
>>
>>
> I just got a Porters catalog, and they are selling what looks like a good
> deal I might try. It is a camera and viewer package. Camera is a film
> camera, but still looks neat. The camera is a fixed focus (box camera)
> thing, but the system uses 4 x 6 prints. The downside is that the print
> makes the fused image a 4 x 3, portrait style format. I guess I could live
> with that. The attractive thing is that the whole thing- camera and
> viewer- is forty bucks!

Yes, I've seen those sets sold by Porter and others for several years. The
4x3 portrait orientation doesn't bother me, as that's what I get of course
with the Pentax Optio 3D method I mentioned above. I don't know how good
those simple fixed-focus cameras are, but at least one big advantage is that
you take the stereo pair *simultaneously*, which of course I cannot do with
any camera-shifting method. As you say, the price is right!

N.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 3:46:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:E4tae.8$QL5.376@news.uswest.net...
> Nostrobino wrote:
>> "Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
>> news:1113752376.627ee203176b7e810af50ed04c54a3b5@teranews...
>>
>>>Neat thing about digital is how easy it is to edit. While I can use
>>>crosseyed method okay, I also have a stereoptican.
>>
>>
>> You mean stereoscope. There has been a good deal of unnecessary confusion
>> about these terms, but a stereopticon (correct spelling) has nothing to
>> do with stereo imaging, the name notwithstanding. Unfortunately at least
>> one manufacturer in recent years sold a stereoscope advertised as a
>> stereopticon. Grrrrr. That's the sort of thing that makes the language go
>> to hell.
>>
>> The stereopticon was a kind of 19th-century slide projector. It did not
>> do anything in 3-D.
>>
>>
>>
>>>It is easy in most digital editors to cut and move the left image to the
>>>right of the right image, converting it back to a normal (not crossed)
>>>viewing image.
>>
>>
>> Yes, that's true.
>>
>> N.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Nostrobino wrote:
>>>
>>>>Charlie, those look like great shots, but unfortunately I have never
>>>>been able to see cross-eyed stereo. I have no problem at all free
>>>>viewing parallel stereo pairs, as long as the images are not too large
>>>>(up to 2 3/8" separation of homologous points is easy, and I can get to
>>>>about 3" with some effort). I've triedthe looking-at-a-finger-first
>>>>trick for the cross-eyed method and it still doesn't help. As soon as I
>>>>try to merge the stereo pair, my eyes go into parallel. I understand the
>>>>advantages of cross-eyed but I just can't do it. I wonder what
>>>>percentage of people can.
>>>>
>>>>N.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1113688341.801740.249790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A while back I found some information on how to take 3D photos on the
>>>>>newsgroups and it got me interested in making my own. Since then I have
>>>>>been fun making my own stereoptic images and loving it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Recently I posted a good number on my photo website. These are the
>>>>>kinds that you cross your eyes to see. Here is the address:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://kerekesphotos.com/kp-gallery-public-3d.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>>Enjoy!
>>>>>
>>>>>Charlie
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> Ah, okay. Many thanks for correcting this for me. You are right- it is a
> common mistake- I call it that 'cause I saw it referred to as such in a
> photography book once.

Pardon me for just repeating the correction today. I did so before getting
to this post. :-)

Stereo photography is a lot of fun. While actually it's been around nearly
as long as photography has (I have a book full of vintage stereo photos,
some of them going back to 1850 or so), unfortunately it seems to have lost
public interest. There was a big surge of interest in 35mm stereo starting
around 1947 with the Stereo Realist camera and its many imitators, and also
a number of European-format stereo cameras. These sold well through the
1950s, but by the 1960s interest in them seemed to have dried up. One reason
perhaps was that they used slide film, which had to be put in stereo mounts
when processed and then used with a special viewer.

I think more people would be interested in stereo if they experienced it.
What I'd really like to see is some manufacturer producing a real stereo
digital camera, one producing a stereo pair simultaneously, not requiring
camera shift between shots as in the Pentax Optio 3D mode. I'll bet if any
one camera maker marketed one, others would follow. They all seem to follow
one another in practically everything.

N.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 4:17:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 04:35:08 GMT, Ken Weitzel wrote:

> The cross your eyes by watching your own finger does a bit
> better... I can "create" a third center image, but as soon
> as I try to "look at it" it disappears :) 
>
> Guess I make a poor tester, getting on in years, and stroke
> damaged as well. :) 
>
> I'm at home - but I got silly looks anyway :) 

There'll be fewer silly looks if you don't use your finger. Just
cross your eyes and don't worry that the focus is off. Try to get
the third, center image stabilized so it's the same width as the
other two images. Then, while trying to keep your eyes crossed at
exactly that angle, you'll have to "will" your eyes to focus on the
picture which is further away. Once you've done it a few times it
becomes very easy to do again, but the first time you try it could
take many minutes or longer. From long experience the eyes have
their own notion about how they should focus, depending on the
viewing angle, and you have to teach those old dogs a new trick. I
think that given enough time, everyone can probably learn to view
stereo pictures unassisted by lenses, but it takes more patience
than many are willing to give to the attempt.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:54:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

N,

Thanks for all the great information you provided in this thread. I
have learned a lot.

Charlie
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 7:10:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:tesk611i3e9itksv7m86o2e570i3sufo9g@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 04:35:08 GMT, Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
>> The cross your eyes by watching your own finger does a bit
>> better... I can "create" a third center image, but as soon
>> as I try to "look at it" it disappears :) 
>>
>> Guess I make a poor tester, getting on in years, and stroke
>> damaged as well. :) 
>>
>> I'm at home - but I got silly looks anyway :) 
>
> There'll be fewer silly looks if you don't use your finger. Just
> cross your eyes and don't worry that the focus is off. Try to get
> the third, center image stabilized so it's the same width as the
> other two images. Then, while trying to keep your eyes crossed at
> exactly that angle, you'll have to "will" your eyes to focus on the
> picture which is further away. Once you've done it a few times it
> becomes very easy to do again, but the first time you try it could
> take many minutes or longer. From long experience the eyes have
> their own notion about how they should focus, depending on the
> viewing angle, and you have to teach those old dogs a new trick. I
> think that given enough time, everyone can probably learn to view
> stereo pictures unassisted by lenses, but it takes more patience
> than many are willing to give to the attempt.

This is one area in which those of us old enough to need bifocals actually
have an advantage, at least with images small enough for comfortable free
viewing (parallel). Since the lens of the eye no longer has much power of
accommodation, the reading prescription *forces* the correct focus at the
usual distance for such viewing, and just relaxing the eyes lets them "go
parallel" and merge the stereo image. With only a little practice it becomes
so easy it's done almost instantaneously.

But it's still easier to use slightly larger images (about 3" square each)
and a prismatic viewer, which handles the whole thing automatically whether
one wears glasses or not.

N.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:56:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114293287.195125.90270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> N,
>
> Thanks for all the great information you provided in this thread. I
> have learned a lot.
>
> Charlie

Charlie, you're more than welcome. I hope you continue to experiment with 3D
as it really is a fascinating subject.

I just checked the Reel 3-D site, http://www.stereoscopy.com/reel3d/ and I
am sorry to see that they are no longer doing a retail business. They were
nice people to deal with (it was a man-and-wife business). But they're still
interested in 3D and are keeping their site up, which has many links to
other stereo photography sources. You might want to look over their links.

N.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 5:28:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:10:14 -0400 in rec.photo.digital, "Nostrobino"
<not@home.today> wrote,
>This is one area in which those of us old enough to need bifocals actually
>have an advantage, at least with images small enough for comfortable free
>viewing (parallel). Since the lens of the eye no longer has much power of
>accommodation, the reading prescription *forces* the correct focus at the
>usual distance for such viewing, and just relaxing the eyes lets them "go
>parallel" and merge the stereo image.

Same deal with us nearsighted folks by just taking the glasses off.
Anonymous
March 10, 2009 2:01:23 AM


In part to ease the stress on friends and let them actually see my 3D images I now take that extra step and make Red/Cyan anaglyphs. They can be mailed and a pair of those 'silly' colored glasses thrown in or emailed as any photo without regard to dimensions. Before you reject that notion your should see some well crafted anaglyphs. They can be color accurate and razor sharp when printed on photo paper. Its an effortless method of viewing.
Quote:
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114293287.195125.90270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> N,
>
> Thanks for all the great information you provided in this thread. I
> have learned a lot.
>
> Charlie

Charlie, you're more than welcome. I hope you continue to experiment with 3D
as it really is a fascinating subject.

I just checked the Reel 3-D site, http://www.stereoscopy.com/reel3d/ and I
am sorry to see that they are no longer doing a retail business. They were
nice people to deal with (it was a man-and-wife business). But they're still
interested in 3D and are keeping their site up, which has many links to
other stereo photography sources. You might want to look over their links.

N.

!