results of a new technique for 2D-to-3D conversion

tony brown wrote:

uuglypher wrote:

tony brown wrote:

uuglypher wrote:

In case y’hadn’t noticed, these are for parallel gaze!--
uuglypher
"100% of the shots you don't take don't go in!"
Wayne Gretzky

Very strangely, I see them better as Xeyed than parallel !

Although elderly and no expert, I make, watch and see many, many 3D images and have no difficulty seeing depth with Anglyphs, Side by Sides and Xeyeds but these leave me unsure and look more 3D to me viewed as Xeyed.

Have you tried viewing them as such? Strange effect, but to me they look flatter Side by Side.

Hi, Tony,

Thanks for your comments. It’s not unusual that some viewers of these 2D-to-3D conversions get better results by crossed gaze technique. I’m glad that you mentioned you are elderly. The study I mentioned on the relationship between aging and binocular depth perception in over 400 people 65 years of age or older did find that 27% had normal (or better) binocular depth perception. Looks like you and I (at 81) have found ourselves in that lucky percentile!

best regards,

Dave

As a test, I submit 4 (Tri-shot) stereos in both Side x Side and Xeye formats. There should be no ambiguity as to which is the correct pair appropriate to your viewing arrangement. The tri-shot element is mostly very small. As W.S.Gilbert put it: " ... merely to add artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."