Caravaggio anticipated 3D conversion?

uuglypher wrote:

Turbguy1 wrote:

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

Sorry

, Wayne,

Yor BG (beyond my dotted line) still appears dead flat to me as observed in your posted gallery … and however viewed.

And by the way , your criticism of non-matchng edge details has to make me laugh! You must surely get a migraine trying to merge your two images given the failure of edge detail correspondence therein. ( see attached evidence)

One again, I must marvel at the fact that there is no such thing as “one illusion” perceived by two sets of eyes!

And an online critic I use did say of your image pair ”one heckuva great 3D effect in those rocks” but offered no further comment, kind fellow that he is!

Best regards,

Dave
uuglypher
"100% of the shots you don't take don't go in!"
Wayne Gretzky

Sorry, Wayne, I had meant to address your comment re: the “six pixel difference”.

the paradoxical advantage of geometric transformational 2D-to-3D conversion is that a graded detail size disparity is imposed that accentuates -exaggerates, actually, the detail size differences commensurate with their relative positions in the transformed image as the significant disparities from the comparable positions in the base image. Hence the effortless perception of discernible depths compared with tthe ortho stereographic image pair. Yes, count pixels and there are differences…but not enough and not sufficiently comparable to those in the foreground to provide the slightest functional ease in perception of differentiable depths in the backgrounds.

Best regards,

Dave