Caravaggio anticipated 3D conversion?

To my “eye”, I experience effective disparity at greater distances than you have marked on the true stereo pair For instance, using the original image file, there is a 6 pixel disparity between the distant Snowy Range Medicine Bow Mountains and the trees that I have annotated in the attached image. That is enough for my “eye” to easily discern depth from more distant elements. Of course, elements at further distances have reduced disparity. Elements with a disparity of about a pixel or so appear flat.

This hinges on image size. The original image is 2655 pixels wide by 2227 pixels high, per side. A full size printed image at 300 DPI would be 8.85” x 7.42 high, per side. As image size is reduced (particularly on an electronic screen), the disparity is reduced and depth experience at greater element distances is more difficult to discern.  If the full sized image were reproduced with a actual field of view that matched the original field of view, realism would be further enhanced.

As I attempt to fuse your conversion, it honestly appears quite flat, perhaps with some warpage of a flat plane. All of the “nitty-gritty” roundness and solidity details of the foreground rock has disappeared. Additionally, there are details at the bottom of the conversion that do not have matching details between sides (the bottom of the frame has some disturbing artifacts that I have difficulty overlooking).

Do note that in the past I had utilized a wide fuzzy border to help mask any window violations in the foreground elements I might overlook during alignment. I still do, but nowadays I use a narrower fuzzy border.

You might wish to apply a conversion to the original file. You can download it here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F-9GR8HHwooHmDLlpLYFHSF1qI00UDJR/view?usp=sharing

Regards,

Wayne