A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stereoscopic galaxy NGC3370



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 21st 06, 01:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
tontoko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default 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  
Old December 21st 06, 01:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
tontoko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default 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  
Old December 21st 06, 01:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
tontoko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default 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  
Old December 21st 06, 05:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
J. Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,690
Default 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  
Old December 22nd 06, 02:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mike Russell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 408
Default 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  
Old December 22nd 06, 05:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default 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  
Old December 22nd 06, 05:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mike Russell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 408
Default 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  
Old December 23rd 06, 12:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
tontoko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.