Please participate in a research project

Hi, All,

I am accumulating some research data concerning the contributions of different sorts of image pair disparities to stereopsis. The participation of as many on this forum as possible would be greatly appreciated.  Non-representational as the visual data is, it makes no difference whether it is viewed by parallel gaze or crossed gaze. (Sorry, no anaglyphs).

Please, for the results to be significant...please...record your opinions without having viewed the posted responses of other participants.

Variation is expected because, as ol’ Carl Gauss, of “Bell Shaped Curve” fame proved: “Your mileage may vary”!

Please state for each of the two image pairs (YRC and QRC) which of the following 3D effects you perceive:

no 3D effect

slight 3D effect

mild 3D effect

strong 3D effect

Many thanks for your participation.

Dave

Thank you, Wayne, for your input and for starting what I hope will be a long list of contributors!

Dave

Sailor Blue wrote:

Viewing cross eyed.

YRC: No 3D effect

ORC: Strong

It may be a viewing artifact buy where the line of characters changes depth there even appears to be in intermediate step visible.

Thanks, Sailor Blue,

Others who have viewed these pairs have noticed the same thing.

Dave

YRC - slight when viewed parallel, not seeing it when viewed cross-eyed.

QRC - strong when viewed both ways.

threed123 wrote:

YRC - slight when viewed parallel, not seeing it when viewed cross-eyed.

QRC - strong when viewed both ways.

Thank you, threed123, for taking the time to help!

Dave Graham

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

Brian F Flint wrote:

Viewing parallel or cross-view

RYC none

QRC strong

Thank you, Brian.

I very much appreciate your input!

Dave Graham

Thank you, Zeev,

I appreciate your taking time to check these image pairs and provide your input!

Dave

YRC - slight (noted on the second line of text)

QRC - strong

Thanks, Gunner, for your input.

It is appreciated!

Dave Graham

uuglypher wrote:

Hi, All,

I am accumulating some research data concerning the contributions of different sorts of image pair disparities to stereopsis. The participation of as many on this forum as possible would be greatly appreciated. Non-representational as the visual data is, it makes no difference whether it is viewed by parallel gaze or crossed gaze. (Sorry, no anaglyphs).

Please, for the results to be significant...please...record your opinions without having viewed the posted responses of other participants.

Variation is expected because, as ol’ Carl Gauss, of “Bell Shaped Curve” fame proved: “Your mileage may vary”!

Please state for each of the two image pairs (YRC and QRC) which of the following 3D effects you perceive:

no 3D effect

slight 3D effect

mild 3D effect

strong 3D effect

Many thanks for your participation.

Dave

Six forum participants have provided their data so far!

Each additional participant’s data will add to the statistical significance of the research and to a more refined understanding of a previously unconsidered factor that contributes to image pair disparity upon which our binocular depth perception) is based.

So please take just a few minutes to examine and report your opinions on each of the two image pairs:

no 3D effect

slight effect

mild effect

strong effect

Many thanks for your participation

Dave Graham

Crosseyed:

YRC slight

QRC strong

Phostructor wrote:

Viewed parallel:

YRC No 3D effect

ORC Medium

Viewed crossed:

YRC Slight

ORC Strong

-I generally prefer parallel viewing, but these were easier to see crossed.

Thank you, Photostructor,

Thanks for taking the time to help, and for your input!

Dave Graham

Bill Costa wrote:

YRC: I see no 3D effect

QRC: I see a definite 3D effect. However I find it difficult to pick a degree (slight, medium, strong). Compared to what?

There is a definite, clear, and unmistakable 3D effect in QRC. But the amount of depth in the image seems modest. Nothing is dramatically in front of or behind the window but I can easily see characters at different relative depths. It just seems like a subjective measure that is hard to quantify given the choices.

I think a better approach might be to have 3 or 4 images and have the subject rank them in relationship to each other, from most 3D effect to least.

Thank you, Bill, for your response to the survey and for your comments.

You asked ”Compared to what.”

In the context of the survey samples, the only real comparison is is with each other.

If one offers no 3D and the other offers some, that’s significant.

If both offer some 3D effect, it is significant if the difference is minimal or greater than minimal.

The provided scale provides the opportunity for conclusions in these realms of significance.

Clearly, there are, thus, subjective as well as objective patterns of response, recognizing that there are significant differences among individuals in their relative capacities for depth perception.

I must, therefore, emphasize that there are no correct or incorrect responses. Everyone’s “mileage will vary”.

Thanks, again, Bill,  for your input.

Dave Graham