Stereoscopic galaxy NGC3370

In the following website;

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=3566

the image shown is the stereograph of galaxy NGC3370 synthesized by
Stereographer (original image: HST).

For detail of Stereographer, visit;

http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereo...tereograph.htm

At galactic distances there isn't sufficent parallax to provide
"stereoscopic" perception.

Doug

"tontoko" wrote in message
oups.com...
In the following website;

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=3566

the image shown is the stereograph of galaxy NGC3370 synthesized by
Stereographer (original image: HST).

For detail of Stereographer, visit;

http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereo...tereograph.htm

Doug Robbins wrote:
At galactic distances there isn't sufficent parallax to provide
"stereoscopic" perception.

At least not if you stay within the solar system.

Austin

On 19 Dec 2006 06:12:41 -0800, AustinMN wrote:
Doug Robbins wrote:
At galactic distances there isn't sufficent parallax to provide
"stereoscopic" perception.

At least not if you stay within the solar system.

Nitpick: If you wait long enough, the orbit of the Sun around the
galactic center will provide a reasonably large baseline. Of course
'long enough' is best measured in megayears...

-dms

Doug Robbins wrote:
At galactic distances there isn't sufficent parallax to provide
"stereoscopic" perception.


Stereoscopic images often have enhanced depth for effect. I think doing
that with stars is a neat idea. They're so far away it's easy to forget
that some are much, much further away than others.

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

Doug Robbins wrote:
At galactic distances there isn't sufficent parallax to provide
"stereoscopic" perception.

Doug

"tontoko" wrote in message
oups.com...
In the following website;

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=3566

the image shown is the stereograph of galaxy NGC3370 synthesized by
Stereographer (original image: HST).

For detail of Stereographer, visit;

http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereo...tereograph.htm

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.
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"

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)

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"

J. Clarke wrote:

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.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Real or not - the results are fantastic. I have not seen anything so
cool since my Viewmaster.

Brgds,
Ron