Taking 3D stereoptic photos

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

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" wrote in message
oups.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

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

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" wrote in message
...
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" wrote in message
oups.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

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

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

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

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

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

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.