If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Stereoscopic galaxy NGC3370
Thank you (^_^)
M-M wrote: In article .com, "tontoko" wrote: Surely there isn't parallax enough to cause stereoscopic effect since every star or galaxy has virtually "infinite" distance from the camera. My software converts the dimness of the image to the distance from the camera. Practically the galaxy or nebula is thought to have some fractal structure and it causes blurry on the image taken by the camera when the part of it is more distant from other parts. The following image is an example of synthesized stereograph for a fractal structure. As seen on it, more detailed, more distant it looks like. http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=2049 That one is very easy to see, and quite effective. The galaxy is better if I reduce the size to 50% of original so onscreen the (dual) image is no more than 5 inches wide. At least that is the way my eyes work. Nice work! -- m-m |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Stereoscopic galaxy NGC3370
In the commercial version of Stereographer, it is available to
synthesize the stereograph having 700x500 pixels ;-) J. Clarke wrote: On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:00:27 -0700, Bill Funk wrote: On 19 Dec 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "tontoko" wrote: Surely there isn't parallax enough to cause stereoscopic effect since every star or galaxy has virtually "infinite" distance from the camera. My software converts the dimness of the image to the distance from the camera. Are you trying to say that the dimmer a subject is, the farther away it is? I don't think many astronomers will agree with this. Practically the galaxy or nebula is thought to have some fractal structure and it causes blurry on the image taken by the camera when the part of it is more distant from other parts. Surely, the DOF at the distance of the subject is great enough to make the entire subject in acceptable focus. See your above line about the subject being virtually infinitly far away. So, each part of the subject will be virtually the same distance from the camera, so even a virtually non-existant DOF will render the entire subject in acceptable focus. It looks like he's creating false depth of field along with the false dimensions. His tool can make pretty pictures but it doesn't come close to reflecting reality. He doesn't give you what you would get taking a stereo pair from two widely different positions with the aid of a faster-than-light starship. Further the image size his software produces seems to be pretty small--for 50 bucks I'd want something that could generate a pair that I could hang on a wall and 350 kilopixels doesn't cut it. The following image is an example of synthesized stereograph for a fractal structure. As seen on it, more detailed, more distant it looks like. http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=2049 -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Stereoscopic galaxy NGC3370
I concede it is hard to confirm whether that stereograph is "what's
wanted" unless our left eye is 1000 light-year far away from right eye. In the following website, I collected some stereographs for microscopic objects, If you are interested, please visit; http://geocities.com/q17320508/stere...microscope.htm Bill Funk wrote: On 20 Dec 2006 22:00:15 GMT, "J. Clarke" wrote: On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:00:27 -0700, Bill Funk wrote: On 19 Dec 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "tontoko" wrote: Surely there isn't parallax enough to cause stereoscopic effect since every star or galaxy has virtually "infinite" distance from the camera. My software converts the dimness of the image to the distance from the camera. Are you trying to say that the dimmer a subject is, the farther away it is? I don't think many astronomers will agree with this. Practically the galaxy or nebula is thought to have some fractal structure and it causes blurry on the image taken by the camera when the part of it is more distant from other parts. Surely, the DOF at the distance of the subject is great enough to make the entire subject in acceptable focus. See your above line about the subject being virtually infinitly far away. So, each part of the subject will be virtually the same distance from the camera, so even a virtually non-existant DOF will render the entire subject in acceptable focus. It looks like he's creating false depth of field along with the false dimensions. His tool can make pretty pictures but it doesn't come close to reflecting reality. He doesn't give you what you would get taking a stereo pair from two widely different positions with the aid of a faster-than-light starship. I think you're right; his description, as I read it, doesn't really say what's going on. it could be useful, if that's what's wanted. Further the image size his software produces seems to be pretty small--for 50 bucks I'd want something that could generate a pair that I could hang on a wall and 350 kilopixels doesn't cut it. The following image is an example of synthesized stereograph for a fractal structure. As seen on it, more detailed, more distant it looks like. http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=2049 -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Stereoscopic galaxy NGC3370
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 04:23:05 -0800, tontoko wrote:
In the commercial version of Stereographer, it is available to synthesize the stereograph having 700x500 pixels ;-) Which is 350 kilopixels which is a tenth the resolution of an obsolete point-and-shoot and not sufficient for more than postage-stamp sized prints if appearance is an issue. J. Clarke wrote: On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:00:27 -0700, Bill Funk wrote: On 19 Dec 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "tontoko" wrote: Surely there isn't parallax enough to cause stereoscopic effect since every star or galaxy has virtually "infinite" distance from the camera. My software converts the dimness of the image to the distance from the camera. Are you trying to say that the dimmer a subject is, the farther away it is? I don't think many astronomers will agree with this. Practically the galaxy or nebula is thought to have some fractal structure and it causes blurry on the image taken by the camera when the part of it is more distant from other parts. Surely, the DOF at the distance of the subject is great enough to make the entire subject in acceptable focus. See your above line about the subject being virtually infinitly far away. So, each part of the subject will be virtually the same distance from the camera, so even a virtually non-existant DOF will render the entire subject in acceptable focus. It looks like he's creating false depth of field along with the false dimensions. His tool can make pretty pictures but it doesn't come close to reflecting reality. He doesn't give you what you would get taking a stereo pair from two widely different positions with the aid of a faster-than-light starship. Further the image size his software produces seems to be pretty small--for 50 bucks I'd want something that could generate a pair that I could hang on a wall and 350 kilopixels doesn't cut it. The following image is an example of synthesized stereograph for a fractal structure. As seen on it, more detailed, more distant it looks like. http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=2049 -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Stereoscopic galaxy NGC3370
"tontoko" wrote in message
ups.com... I concede it is hard to confirm whether that stereograph is "what's wanted" unless our left eye is 1000 light-year far away from right eye. The fireworks are an example where we know the shape - a more or less spherical set of parabolic trajectories. Your stereo view, while interesting, extracts a completely different shape than this, with the colored trajectories appearing closer than the larger white ones. In the following website, I collected some stereographs for microscopic objects, If you are interested, please visit; http://geocities.com/q17320508/stere...microscope.htm I agree with Ron - the images are interesting, and fun to look at, and you are to be congratulated for discovering something new, and implementing it. But you are perhaps leaving it a little ambiguous whether this is real stereo, or an interesting pseudo stereo effect. It is the latter. -- Mike Russell www.curvemeister.com/forum/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Stereoscopic galaxy NGC3370
Mike Russell wrote: But you are perhaps leaving it a little ambiguous whether this is real stereo, or an interesting pseudo stereo effect. It is the latter. -- Mike Russell www.curvemeister.com/forum/ Hi Mike, Maybe a better term would be perceptually enhanced. I think the technique may have applications in memory retention/production in the classroom and children would love it. Maybe with an image of a mandala it could be used as an aid in meditation; again, especially for children in the classroom. The images could use a slider for adjusting eye set distance (IPD). Brgds, Ron |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Stereoscopic galaxy NGC3370
wrote in message
ups.com... [re stereo enhancement of single images] Hi Mike, Maybe a better term would be perceptually enhanced. I think the technique may have applications in memory retention/production in the classroom and children would love it. Maybe with an image of a mandala it could be used as an aid in meditation; again, especially for children in the classroom. The images could use a slider for adjusting eye set distance (IPD). Now you're talking - sort of a 3D version of Photoshop's warp tool, that lets you mold the surface like clay, with some added tools to use brightness, detail, etc to create default surfaces. Now the only question is, who writes the code? :-) -- Mike Russell www.curvemeister.com/forum/ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Stereoscopic galaxy NGC3370
Please mind that my software can not reproduce the perspective with
100% authentication. Firstly if the focal point resides between the foreground and background, the software doesn't work properly because it can not distinguish the object out of focus in the foreground from the background. Secondly if the object has uniform appearance, the software can not estimate the relative distance of it from other objects (therefore the software does not give proper perspective for stars since every star has similar appearance as a bright dot except sun.) Mike Russell wrote: wrote in message ups.com... [re stereo enhancement of single images] Hi Mike, Maybe a better term would be perceptually enhanced. I think the technique may have applications in memory retention/production in the classroom and children would love it. Maybe with an image of a mandala it could be used as an aid in meditation; again, especially for children in the classroom. The images could use a slider for adjusting eye set distance (IPD). Now you're talking - sort of a 3D version of Photoshop's warp tool, that lets you mold the surface like clay, with some added tools to use brightness, detail, etc to create default surfaces. Now the only question is, who writes the code? :-) -- Mike Russell www.curvemeister.com/forum/ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy | tontoko | Digital Photography | 0 | December 18th 06 01:17 AM |
Stereoscopic SN1994D | tontoko | Digital Photography | 0 | December 16th 06 12:45 AM |
Stereoscopic NGC7009 | tontoko | Digital Photography | 0 | December 14th 06 07:29 AM |
Stereoscopic Photography | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 27 | November 17th 05 05:18 AM |
Stereoscopic view of nebulae | tontoko | Digital Photography | 20 | January 11th 05 07:45 AM |