Aeolian Features

Oh, I agree that the disparities revealed by the tints in the anaglyph are the result of cloud motion between shots, not by actual disparities that would be produced by simultaneous capture of two views with some interaxial separation. However, by my view, these clouds are NOT a “painted backdrop” flat image. They are "converted" by natural methods! The cloud motions actually produce disparities that (in my viewing experience) give some areas volume. Some cloud details are obviously “in front of” others. See below.

View crosseye

View parallel

To my vision, the red annotated grey cloud is clearly “in front of” the whiter, larger cloud. Do you experience this??

As to the conversions, do they contain depth? I have to say yes. But what I experience is a 2D image smoothly warped, as if I was looking at a 2D image printed on a rubber sheet that has been deformed by some method. I don’t see a clear depth difference between the sandstone formation edges and the clouds in either view.

Since I capture much work via “cha-cha” (single camera, shifted) method, I have to be cognizant about cloud motions, in order to avoid the clouds being fused ahead of other features (trees, rocks, phone poles, flowers) that should be “in front”. The result would contain areas that when viewed are “pseudo-stereo”. Sometimes it works, sometimes it fails…

Here’s an extreme example, taken on a very windy day…

View crosseye

View parallel

Closer clouds move more (have greater captured horizontal disparity) than more distant clouds.

Experiencing this motion in real time provides a significant monocular depth clue.

Comment?