Whats the best way to display stereo images for a general audience?

My vote is side by side with the left image on the left side and the right image on the right side, ie not cross eye images which frankly hurt my eyes.

Also not anaglyphs because if you don't have the specs, you can't see them so many DPR users will be excluded.

The way i am suggesting means that anyone can easily view the images without any eye strain or special apparatus.

In fact, we could even ask DPR to create an applet so that we can just post in 2 images and the applet resizes and displays it properly.

Any thoughts on this?
--
Z5 V10 F11 F70 F200 S6500 S100 EX1 D40

bartshumandad wrote:

In my experience, anaglyphs seem to reach the broadest audience - it is surprising the number of people who can dig out some red/cyan glasses from somewhere, probably more than can be convinced to try free-viewing without equipment.

Just as an not terribly scientific example, their are sister Anaglyph and Side-by-side groups on Flikr, and I can upload the same picture to both groups, the anaglyph versions gets double the views.

Cheers
Steve

Thats interesting, don't you find the anaglyphs annoying though because they mess up colour, sharpness and brightness so badly?
--
Z5 V10 F11 F70 F200 S6500 S100 EX1 D40

There are just too many options to use for a "general audience".

Most would probably prefer a side-by-side parallel print viewer (such as the old Holmes viewers, but using a Keystone Visual Survey Telebinocular for the ultimate in quality) to maintain the absolute ultimate in image quality for single person viewing...or polarized projection if the audience is a large group.

I personally prefer crosseye side-by-side...it permits very large images to be viewed, and I don'y suffer any ill effects...but it's a learned skill that not everyone in a "general audience" can do.

Wayne

SYOTR wrote:

I prefer crossed-eye pairs. I cannot free view parallel ones.
Another option is LRL which can be viewed either way.

LRL is a great suggestion. What I am talking about is allowing people on this forum to view stereo images that other people post, with the least amount of convenience.

So the next question is what is the optimum size images to post if you use LRL as a format for this forum?

Viewing a stereo image in my opinion, has been the main reason why 3D is not very popular. The need for glasses etc. has been the big holdup for the 3D movies/TV as well. I also do not think the camera used for taking the 3D type image is the big problem. Using the "Cha-Cha" method, I have many great shots using a variety of 2D cameras.

Another big problem is that some people, even with glasses/viewers, do not get the 3D effect. My eye doctor tells me that it has to do with their "spatial vision"(spelling?). My brother never did see my 3D shots no mater how I set him up.

I am also a member at some of the other 3D forums and have learned a lot. Currently I am involved with the effect of the "stereo window" and also "Power Windows" which is a process that involves what your eye see and your brain interprets.

Quite awhile ago, a much older friend loaned to me her "Holmes Stereographic viewer" and many boxes of the cardboard stereo images. She had received these from a much older family member. I did a scan of these many images prior to returning them. Besides the general theme of these images, there was a few boxes of the San Francisco earthquake back in 1906?

Now here in the year 2011, it seems that we could collectively improve on this 3D process. When I think back to when these old stereographic cards were made (1860's) and the tools they had then, it was a true wonder.

Using early cameras, no color film and mass production/distribution of the cards must have been almost impossible. From what I have found, these mass produced cards for sale to the general public were lithographs. They were hand colored. These two items in todays world would be enough to kill the deal.

But how many of us remember going to "Great Grandma's house" and with the Holmes type viewer marveled at what we saw (No TV either back then).

A few years ago I bought a "Pokescope" viewer, surprisingly not for 3D, but for its example of clever product packaging. This little viewer has proved to be ideal for me now with its ability to also view "parallel" 3D images on my computer monitor. There are other viewers on the market as well and no I am not affiliated in any way with "PokeScope". I personally prefer cross eyed as it is easy for me.

The idea of the three images is very clever. I have a couple of 3D software programs that I use. None have this 3 image feature. How is it done?

So with much interest, I will follow this thread/forum and see what the rest of this group is doing.

Paul

SYOTR wrote:

PaulM2 wrote:

The idea of the three images is very clever. I have a couple of 3D software programs that I use. None have this 3 image feature. How is it done?

These are created with StereoPhotoMaker (freeware.)

Bring up the two images, align them, resize to desired size and then use the File/Save Universal Freeview L-R-L option or press Ctrl+Alt+S.

I have been a long time user of the SPM software. I was surprised to find that I was not using the latest version. No LRL pick.

So I downloaded and installed the latest version.

I live quite close to Letchworth NYS Park (Grand Canyon of the East) so I did a few Cha-Cha shots and tried out the latest version of the software.

I have a problem. After running the normal process, I have a great version of a parallel 3D image. With the software I can process for a X view which also is great. I can not get the save as LRL to give me an satisfactory image, I get an overlap which makes viewing impossible.

I did the resize bit and even took the L/R images to very small. images, but when doing the LRL pick I get a overlap no mater what re-size I use.

I must have a some other setting very wrong.

One thing I did notice with the latest version is that Autopano is now part of the program.

Paul

guif wrote:

hello,

update you references, my lenticular prints are done with 24 points of view of the subject, aligned manually, interlaced then printed in 50cmx50cm format with a 2880dpi printer, placed under a 60 lpi lenticular sheet, and it produces a really fantastic effect, unfortunately this is so new that you may not be able to experience it easily.

fuji lenticular print are made with 2 points of view interpolated to 12, printed on a sublimation printer, and yes it is not a tribute to lenticular printing.

That sounds incredible.
Are the sheets commercially available?
Are they expensive?
Do they work with a standard printer?
How do you align the paper in the printer with enough precision?

Sorry for all the questions

-- hide signature --

cheers,

Guillaume d'Hubert
http://www.studiogh.fr
http://www.animostudio.fr
http://www.pbase.com/guif/guifllaumes_gallery

Wellington100 wrote:

guif wrote:

hello,

update you references, my lenticular prints are done with 24 points of view of the subject, aligned manually, interlaced then printed in 50cmx50cm format with a 2880dpi printer, placed under a 60 lpi lenticular sheet, and it produces a really fantastic effect, unfortunately this is so new that you may not be able to experience it easily.

That sounds large. I'm printing 5x7's (inches), and I don't think the resolution is so important, either for the printer or the camera. Sony Nex files have been printing OK for me, but if I tried half a meter prints, I think I might need more resolution in the source print! Even so, 60lpi is rather course for small prints, so I might like trying even larger prints sometime...

fuji lenticular print are made with 2 points of view interpolated to 12, printed on a sublimation printer, and yes it is not a tribute to lenticular printing.

I've only been using two frames. It's OK, but I wouldn't mind trying software that interpolates to see if it looks better. In the past, I used film cameras that would take 3 to 4 photos.

That sounds incredible.
Are the sheets commercially available?

You can buy pre-cut and pre-glued sheets, which is what I did this last time. (Or without glue, or in huge rolls, or....)

Are they expensive?

But it seems to be rather expensive.

Do they work with a standard printer?

Yeah, any decent inkjet, but there's a weird calibration that has to occur. I've only gotten reliable results with a particular software that allows me to specify a tiny adjustment to the pitch. I think this is a case where if you expect top professional results, you have to have better software and more skill, but you can DIY with decent results.

How do you align the paper in the printer with enough precision?

Part skill, part luck. It is highly problematic. Knalberto would probably be very excited that some of my prints do not come out. However, the successes are worth it.

Sorry for all the questions

-- hide signature --

cheers,

Guillaume d'Hubert
http://www.studiogh.fr
http://www.animostudio.fr
http://www.pbase.com/guif/guifllaumes_gallery

-- hide signature --

Z5 V10 F11 F70 F200 S6500 S100 EX1 D40