[stereogram] Leeds Castle

On Apr 9, 7:07*pm, wrote:
On Apr 9, 12:05*am, Troy Piggins wrote:

Never really tried one of these. *Was at Leeds Castle and thought
this shot would really suit a cross-eye stereogram so had a go at
it. *Work for you?

http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?al...photos/2008_04....

--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.

Very cool, Troy. *Works for me, and the result is quite compelling..

Just as an aside your link didn't work... until I put a www. in front
of the ..piggo.com.. *Strange. *Just lettin' you know - domain stuff
ain't my field, but I recall others have also reported intermittent
problems seeing your pages - maybe this is related? *I get the same
problem/solution using Firefox (3 beta) and IE 6.

PS - Spoke too soon - seems it was just a fluke. I just tried your
other link (Dubai), and the same trick *didn't* work - can't get at
the shot at all.. So I think it is some other sort of flakiness. Not
having trouble with other sites.
Error reads:
Failed to Connect
The connection was refused when attempting to contact www.piggo.com.
(same with piggo.com)
Though the site seems valid, the browser was unable to establish a
connection.


Will try later.

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
* Jeff R. wrote:

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
Never really tried one of these. Was at Leeds Castle and thought
this shot would really suit a cross-eye stereogram so had a go at
it. Work for you?

http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?al...2/img_7296.jpg

Nice one Troy. What separation did you use?

Thanks mate. Not sure, but was trying to get them about 100mm
apart - same distance as eyes are. Hope that was the right way.


100mm is about right. I'm more like 75mm, but lets not get into
personalities here...
I thought it looked a little wide, but the effect is good.

Hooroo

--
Jeff R.

wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 12:05 am, Troy Piggins wrote:
http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?al...photos/2008_04...

Just as an aside your link didn't work... until I put a www. in front
of the ..piggo.com.. Strange. Just lettin' you know - domain stuff
ain't my field, but I recall others have also reported intermittent
problems seeing your pages - maybe this is related? I get the same
problem/solution using Firefox (3 beta) and IE 6.

Interesting.
Worked fine here, with Firefox.

??

--
Jeff R.

On Apr 9, 7:21*pm, "Jeff R." wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 9, 12:05 am, Troy Piggins wrote:

http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?al...photos/2008_04...
Just as an aside your link didn't work...

Interesting.
Worked fine here, with Firefox.

??

--
Jeff R.

I've never had a problem with Troy's links until tonight either.. I
just tried manually via the IP address, and no joy there either. I
just can't get to it at all, but half an hour ago it worked...

Troy, if it helps, here's the end of a tracert from me to you..
....
7 59 ms 59 ms 58 ms ge4-2.bne-pipe-bdr1.iinet.net.au
[203.215.20.25]
8 55 ms 58 ms 59 ms gi1-0-0.bne-pipe-bba2.ii.net
[203.215.8.11]
9 gi1-0-0.bne-pipe-bba2.ii.net [203.215.8.11] reports: Destination
net unreachable.
Trace complete.

* wrote:
On Apr 9, 7:21*pm, "Jeff R." wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 9, 12:05 am, Troy Piggins wrote:

http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?al...photos/2008_04...
Just as an aside your link didn't work...

Interesting.
Worked fine here, with Firefox.

I've never had a problem with Troy's links until tonight either.. I
just tried manually via the IP address, and no joy there either. I
just can't get to it at all, but half an hour ago it worked...

Troy, if it helps, here's the end of a tracert from me to you..
...
7 59 ms 59 ms 58 ms ge4-2.bne-pipe-bdr1.iinet.net.au [203.215.20.25]
8 55 ms 58 ms 59 ms gi1-0-0.bne-pipe-bba2.ii.net
[203.215.8.11]
9 gi1-0-0.bne-pipe-bba2.ii.net [203.215.8.11] reports: Destination
net unreachable.
Trace complete.

Current IP address is 124.171.188.193 BTW.

The other person who had trouble IIRC was Russell/PixelPix.
Turned out to be a DNS problem at his end I think.

Sounds like it's a DNS problem with you too. Either your home
computer or ISP or something. Too many possibilities.

My server is unfortunately dynamic IP. The piggo.com pointer
does update when the IP changes, but perhaps it does cause random
glitches.

Suggest you try again after hour or so? If you could be bothered


--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.

* wrote:
On Apr 9, 12:05*am, Troy Piggins wrote:
Never really tried one of these. *Was at Leeds Castle and thought
this shot would really suit a cross-eye stereogram so had a go at
it. *Work for you?

http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?al...photos/2008_04...

Very cool, Troy. Works for me, and the result is quite compelling..

Thanks Mark! Glad you liked it.

Just as an aside your link didn't work... until I put a www. in front
of the ..piggo.com.. Strange. Just lettin' you know - domain stuff
ain't my field, but I recall others have also reported intermittent
problems seeing your pages - maybe this is related? I get the same
problem/solution using Firefox (3 beta) and IE 6.

See my other post.

--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.

* David Ruether wrote:

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message ...
* Jeff R. wrote:
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...

Never really tried one of these. Was at Leeds Castle and thought
this shot would really suit a cross-eye stereogram so had a go at
it. Work for you?

http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?al...2/img_7296.jpg

Nice one Troy. What separation did you use?

Thanks mate. Not sure, but was trying to get them about 100mm
apart - same distance as eyes are. Hope that was the right way.

I find that the separation depends on the predominant subject
distance. If shooting things that are close in, little separation is
better - but for landscapes, everything will look very flat unless
the separation is exaggerated (you see this in old-time stereograms,
where the background has little depth variation). Framing properly
helps, also, where roughly the closest materials at the frame edges
in both images are the same (a rule I unfortunately often broke
with my early images, with the consequence that some close in
material does not exist in both images, giving a doubled frame...

Ok. Thanks for the tips.

--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...

I find that the separation depends on the predominant subject
distance. If shooting things that are close in, little separation is
better - but for landscapes, everything will look very flat unless
the separation is exaggerated (you see this in old-time stereograms,
where the background has little depth variation). Framing properly
helps, also, where roughly the closest materials at the frame edges
in both images are the same (a rule I unfortunately often broke
with my early images, with the consequence that some close in
material does not exist in both images, giving a doubled frame...

Agreed on all points.
I don't, though, adjust my separation as I have two cameras bolted together
on a non-adjustable mount - set as close as possible to my inter-ocular
separation (Jiminy! I first typed that "inter-ovular"!).

Like most everyone else, I just cheat by making sure I've got lots of stuff
in the foreground.

Oh, and Troy... you wouldn't read about it: I can open your page now, but
the image is no longer appearing. Sigghhhh.

--
Jeff R.

* Jeff R. wrote:

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...

I find that the separation depends on the predominant subject
distance. If shooting things that are close in, little separation is
better - but for landscapes, everything will look very flat unless
the separation is exaggerated (you see this in old-time stereograms,
where the background has little depth variation). Framing properly
helps, also, where roughly the closest materials at the frame edges
in both images are the same (a rule I unfortunately often broke
with my early images, with the consequence that some close in
material does not exist in both images, giving a doubled frame...

Agreed on all points.
I don't, though, adjust my separation as I have two cameras bolted together
on a non-adjustable mount - set as close as possible to my inter-ocular
separation (Jiminy! I first typed that "inter-ovular"!).

Like most everyone else, I just cheat by making sure I've got lots of stuff
in the foreground.

Oh, and Troy... you wouldn't read about it: I can open your page now, but
the image is no longer appearing. Sigghhhh.

WTH?! I don't know what's going on here. I don't understand how
the page can load but not the image. Try refreshing? Maybe just
slow to load? Sorry about all this.

--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.

"Lawrence Glickman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:00:02 GMT, "er" wrote:


I once had a pair of artillery spotting binoculars with about two feet
of separation between the objectives. You got excellent stereo depth
discrimination at considerable distances.
--------------------------------------------------------

Woah !!

And I thought that I had a big, wide head.

EQR

well, there is something unusual about your head, based on your
comment.

The ocular lenses are the one's at your eyes...the objective lenses
are the one's he is referring to, which are at the other end.

Yes, and the further apart they are, the smaller it makes anything you take
seem......When they are two and a half inches apart, everything will look
normal, but if they are a couple of feet apart, it will make a landscape
scene look like a model scene set up on a table.