-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Rebecca Lawrence
- Thread starter Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)
- Start date
Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)
Active member
Adding one more image from this set, In this case a 3D Stereo Anaglyph (red/cyan). I use anaglyphs for stereo shots since they are the easiest for the majority of folks to see the 3D effect. Does have a catch with certain colors though. Luckily not much of those problem colors in this image. And yes you need the Red/cyan glasses to see the 3D effect.
I still have the capability to do shutter glasses (if I turn on an older computer) as well my VR glasses can display side-by side 3D, which in both of those cases colors in the image don't matter as much, but again I use the Anaglyph because that is the easiest for most people to see the 3D effect. The one exception is people with no depth perception capability, Interestingly I have been told that even color blind can do the anaglyph versions, because in that case it is the glasses not the eyes filtering the 3D effect. But in my case I have both excellent depth perception and am not color blind, although I do have more blue cones than normal so I see colors differently than most people, but red is still red, I just see it differently.
I still have the capability to do shutter glasses (if I turn on an older computer) as well my VR glasses can display side-by side 3D, which in both of those cases colors in the image don't matter as much, but again I use the Anaglyph because that is the easiest for most people to see the 3D effect. The one exception is people with no depth perception capability, Interestingly I have been told that even color blind can do the anaglyph versions, because in that case it is the glasses not the eyes filtering the 3D effect. But in my case I have both excellent depth perception and am not color blind, although I do have more blue cones than normal so I see colors differently than most people, but red is still red, I just see it differently.
Attachments
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Beautiful work. Even without special glasses.
Elizabeth poses well. I like this work a lot!
Asher
Elizabeth poses well. I like this work a lot!
Asher
Ted Cousins
Member
My cheap 3D glasses didn't work with that image at all(I'm 86).
These days, the side-by-side cross-eyed view works much better for me
Pretty much messed up by ZenForo and resize didn't work, grump ...
... a better view here: https://openphotographyforums.com/forums/attachments/rebecca-lawrence-3d-x-eye-jpg.14606/
Last edited:
Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)
Active member
Here is the side by side of the stereo shot in question, been awhile so not sure if I got the left and right images on the correct sides.
Attachments
Ted Cousins
Member
Looks good to me , Tim. Much, much better than my earlier example.
Thanks for posting.
Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)
Active member
Your welcome, I can't easily do the cross eyed thing, maybe because I have always had actual stereo viewing equipment for the majority of my life. Starting when in my teens with the one with the optics you put over the stereo photo card and then Stereo optics on my light table while doing imagery Analysis in the USAF, later digital with early shutter glasses. Always loved stereo because I could see things easily that the other guys were trying to hide. Couldn't always get it, but I would request it when it would make a difference. Usually did in forested areas.
Currently shoot stereo with a pair of Canon R5c with matching lenses (I have a pair of RF 50/1.8 and EF 24/2.8 (the second with EF lens to RF camera adapters), I have also on a lark used an RF 85/1.8 and an EF 85/1.2L (with adapter) and it worked, but everything had to be in manual mode to work.
I learned the most important part is the up and down have to be aligned closer than the left/right angles for the two cameras.
And then the few times I have shot video it is getting the video synced within 1/120th of a second (if shooting at 30 FPS), best if they happen to actually go simultaneously. Why I use a split wired remote, I manually created from two wired remotes. had to make sure the split part the wires were the same length from trigger to camera. And then camera HAS to be in manual focus. because although same camera, with same updates, they will almost always take different times to finish auto focus.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Can you show us the sapient you used.
I am not familiar with the terms. So it would be helpful if you might describe each individual stereo viewing mechanical system and tell us how you recognize a picture appreciated as 3D by squinting it putting the flat of one’s hand in front of one’s nose and adjusting the focal distance.
Asher
I am not familiar with the terms. So it would be helpful if you might describe each individual stereo viewing mechanical system and tell us how you recognize a picture appreciated as 3D by squinting it putting the flat of one’s hand in front of one’s nose and adjusting the focal distance.
Asher
Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)
Active member
Not exactly sure what you are asking. But I will start with what I used the most over the years I was in the USAF. Image taken at the Wright Patterson Air Museum. As I joke, probably the most important part of the U-2 and SR-71 aircraft systems until the digital era. Without it could get the information from the aircraft's film cameras to the folks that needed it. And for trivia, the one in the WP Air Museum was literally the model used the most in the USAF. We had a few fancier ones, but they all did the same thing.
In the red circle are the stereo arms for the 500 power microscope we used to look at film, you would position the arms so one each was over a frame of film. Depending on the camera system, it was usually a 10% to 15% offset between frames. For some higher altitude systems (read as Sats) they would take a frame forward and then a frame backwards as the Sat orbited created the correct stereo angle between the frames. One aircraft camera system did that as well instead of the 15% frame. And of course it is all based on altitude, in the end you wanted about 5 degrees of arc between the sensor and the target, one camera or two. Although you can do it with less or more. Thus in the studio where I am about 10-12 feet from the model, I have my two stereo cameras centered about 8 inches apart, which is as close as I can get them and result sin a bit of hyperfocal, making the models seem slightly smaller in relation to the background in stereo than they are in reality (or would appear in a 2D image). My stereo mount does allow me to move them farther apart, out to a foot apart, so I could get good results out to 30+ feet. And it is far enough I can do mountain ranges and you still get some stereo effect with larger separations between mountains, although I found driving or hiking far enough works better for items that far in the distance.
As for the Light Table and optics.
You had to line up the arms with the same spot on the two images to see in stereo and then you could move around the image (except near the edges) and would see in 3D Stereo.
In the red circle are the stereo arms for the 500 power microscope we used to look at film, you would position the arms so one each was over a frame of film. Depending on the camera system, it was usually a 10% to 15% offset between frames. For some higher altitude systems (read as Sats) they would take a frame forward and then a frame backwards as the Sat orbited created the correct stereo angle between the frames. One aircraft camera system did that as well instead of the 15% frame. And of course it is all based on altitude, in the end you wanted about 5 degrees of arc between the sensor and the target, one camera or two. Although you can do it with less or more. Thus in the studio where I am about 10-12 feet from the model, I have my two stereo cameras centered about 8 inches apart, which is as close as I can get them and result sin a bit of hyperfocal, making the models seem slightly smaller in relation to the background in stereo than they are in reality (or would appear in a 2D image). My stereo mount does allow me to move them farther apart, out to a foot apart, so I could get good results out to 30+ feet. And it is far enough I can do mountain ranges and you still get some stereo effect with larger separations between mountains, although I found driving or hiking far enough works better for items that far in the distance.
As for the Light Table and optics.
You had to line up the arms with the same spot on the two images to see in stereo and then you could move around the image (except near the edges) and would see in 3D Stereo.
Attachments
Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)
Active member
As for recognizing a 3D picture.
Well the anaglyphs are easiest, because of the red/cyan tint on the edges of the subject.
Note however, anaglyphs don't have to be red/cyan, they just have to be two different colors with matching colored glasses. the most common is the Red/Cyan and that from the days of B+W 3D movies (like "House of Wax" in 3D with Vincent Price - still hate the paddle ball gimmick)
For side by side, which is the one you can do the cross eye thing, usually of course there are two images. The images will usually have very subtle differences. In the above case, the easiest place to see the differences are near the skirt, where the gaps between skirt and Rebecca showing the background behind her are slightly different sizes. The old foldable wire frame with optics you position over the photo or postcard did this trick. I can't find a good picture that shows the one I am thinking of, but several pictures available that were the kind used for postcard stereo viewing. Might remember them if old enough from tourist vista locations, I remember some Grand Canyon stereo postcards and the trinket shop selling the viewers along with the postcards.
And then shutter glasses can use several methods, they basically blink alternating the two images to one eye and then the other. They usually have to have a mechanism to sync the glasses with the projector (NVIDIA had one of the best systems for this until they went all VR. Most VR glasses also use this system for stereo viewing.
And then there is polarization, Common these days in 3D movies in theaters as "real 3D" (well overseas still) which has both frames interlaced in different directions so one eye is seeing one polarization and the other eye is seeing the other polarization. Can't remember the orientation though. My Now ancient Smart TV can still do that kind of Stereo for viewing. The catch with this type is you have to shoot everything a bit brighter, because the polarization will make things seem darker if you don't.
And on a side note, for some people stereo artificial stereo viewing gives them a headache. Never did me though. And around 15% of the population can't see in stereo for multiple reasons, either only one eye or no depth perception.
Well the anaglyphs are easiest, because of the red/cyan tint on the edges of the subject.
Note however, anaglyphs don't have to be red/cyan, they just have to be two different colors with matching colored glasses. the most common is the Red/Cyan and that from the days of B+W 3D movies (like "House of Wax" in 3D with Vincent Price - still hate the paddle ball gimmick)
For side by side, which is the one you can do the cross eye thing, usually of course there are two images. The images will usually have very subtle differences. In the above case, the easiest place to see the differences are near the skirt, where the gaps between skirt and Rebecca showing the background behind her are slightly different sizes. The old foldable wire frame with optics you position over the photo or postcard did this trick. I can't find a good picture that shows the one I am thinking of, but several pictures available that were the kind used for postcard stereo viewing. Might remember them if old enough from tourist vista locations, I remember some Grand Canyon stereo postcards and the trinket shop selling the viewers along with the postcards.
And then shutter glasses can use several methods, they basically blink alternating the two images to one eye and then the other. They usually have to have a mechanism to sync the glasses with the projector (NVIDIA had one of the best systems for this until they went all VR. Most VR glasses also use this system for stereo viewing.
And then there is polarization, Common these days in 3D movies in theaters as "real 3D" (well overseas still) which has both frames interlaced in different directions so one eye is seeing one polarization and the other eye is seeing the other polarization. Can't remember the orientation though. My Now ancient Smart TV can still do that kind of Stereo for viewing. The catch with this type is you have to shoot everything a bit brighter, because the polarization will make things seem darker if you don't.
And on a side note, for some people stereo artificial stereo viewing gives them a headache. Never did me though. And around 15% of the population can't see in stereo for multiple reasons, either only one eye or no depth perception.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thanks for your “in depth”, LOL, descriptions!
Asher
Asher