Looking for feedback

Looking for feed-back:

Here are Parallel Gaze (top pair) and Crossed Gaze (Bottom pair)zero-base 3D conversions of original (left eye) images of:

A a close-up portrait of a barn owl,
B an infra-red summer landscape of a glacial lake (often mistaken for a winter scene),
C a close-up study of a seashell (original image courtesy of Russ Borud), and
D a NE Arizona land-and-skyscape.

Four different experimental techniques of producing image pair disparity were employed with these four image pairs.

It would be appreciated if you would score these four 3D image quad sets (top pair- parallel gaze, bottom pair - crossed gaze) according to this scale:

0 no 3D effect

2 slight 3D effect

3 moderate 3D effect

4 strong 3D effect

Also, I am interested which viewing technique (parallel or crossed) was used or which yielded the best result, if there was a difference.

Many Thanks.

Dave Graham

Tom,

many thanks for taking your time viewing the images and providing your input!

You mentioned using a viewer...what sort?

Again, many thanks,

Dave

Thanks for the info.

If you have a digital pad or a smartphone, they can make the images much easier to view.

B3st regards,

Dave

Thank you, Wayne,

Your comments are substantive and objective.

Much appreciated!

Dave

Ok, here's what I think:

1st one: no 3D effect.  Can't see much difference between the 2 shots.

2nd one:  not working.  The focal length/distance to subject is not the same which causes the brain not to be able to process.

3rd one: some depth perception, but once again I think there's something wrong about the relative dimensions of left and right images.

4th one: Good depth perception, but judging by the edges of the images, the center of sight is not the same in both images as the horizontal displacement of the camera doesn't appear to match the offsset visible to edges.  Nontheless, nice 3D effect.

Regards.

Ron

Hi! I can see and convert 3D images in any format, so I do not have problems with viewing. The answer is the following: 2-3-3-4, but none of the images have a realistic 3D structure, so conversions can be considered unsuccessful, no matter how weak or profound the relative 3D effect. 

Thanks,  Tourlou,

I appreciate your objective comments.

Dave

Hi, Gunner,

Thanks for ranking the images. Can you explain “realistic” in  more objective terms. was that comment in comparison with natural visio, or with orthostereography , or ?.. and specifically what criteria of “realism” should we aspire to capture?

I do appreciate your input.

Dave

Hi, Wayne,

Th@nks for your persistence.

As I asked Gunner, what more objective criteria of realistic can you offer?

One feature of orthostereography, especially with landscapes, that I try to overcome in conversions is the extinction of perceptible depth recession before it can encompass the background, leaving it with the appearance of a painted stage backdrop. To my eyes, that is not realistic, although I think I’ve seen you that we can’t discern depth differences at those distances.  The last landscape illustrate what, to my eye, is realistic depth recession.

Maybe Carl Gauss was right with his bellshaped curve...indicating that our “...mileage may vary”?

And your linked image does have impressive detail depths in the fore and middle grounds.

Thanks,

Dave

STILL LOOKIN’ FOR MORE FEEDBACK !

Turbguy1 wrote:

To convert one side to realistic stereo would take an EXTREME amount of effort. Not that it cannot be done, it would just be time consuming...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/turbguy/40600096883/in/photostream/lightbox/

I agree...

Your 3D example on flickr seems to be made with a single camera with position shifting.