What is the attraction of anaglyphs?

Long History with small investment. Anaglyphs were one of the first projection methods in the '20s and '30s. Using one strip of film MGM made audioscopics.  Colored cellophane was cheap and throway.  No change in projection techniques needed except higher illumination. No special screen.  Anaglyphs were also amenable to print. The Illustrated London News and Realites in France in mid '30s.  And later on, the comic books widely sold.  No special devices needed to achieve the depth effect.   They are still sometimes a cheap and easy way to show stereo in print. No size limitation.   I never had attraction for them myself.  But well done and it takes some doing, they can be attractive.   I hope that contributes to your query some...gs

International Stereoscopic Union covers....many parallel shots inside.  Fits the cover idea.

I can not speak for all Dave, but I have a clue that it may offer a viable no eyball effort option to many for whatever reason., or the history of red blue is now legion and even kind of faddy Seen in ads too.( Q No.maybe some others have a point of view and care to contribute).

i am not anti anaglyphs but as you do, I prefer the pairs. No retinal rivalry and no reduction in intensity and just as good in color as black and white....As I inferred, there are a few true anaglyph artists who understand the technique and offer some that are not half bad. Thus I think it competes. And maybe beats some lesser misaligned and poorly chosen color separations. This Dutch photographer is not half bad IMO. And sometime his work is striking...as photography and stereography and capitalizing on the anaglyph method to its fullest.... PS. I have several plastic framed red and cyan glasses and they are I am sure improved over the cardboard variety given out with mags.) What do you think.. decide: Ciaio Gerry...Frankly I do not think you will gain any scope from the readership of this somnombulent forum. Also, Hillary Hess did a survey on her site and found the cross vs parallel was 50-50. A few expert NSA members like Susan Pinsky always posts three pairs so one can choose. Yet another stereo guru Ron Labbe reminds all that this cuts down on the size, I learned to free view both ways as a youngster...is it like piano lessons, best done early? I get an international pub, the ISU journal Stereoscopy now and then. Their covers are often anaglyphs for size...and the internal photos are small paralllel pairs. Which pony will we choose to ride. Any. All, Or maybe burros

https://www.flickr.com/photos/hoppenbrouwers/30233062045

I strongly feel that  Mr, Hoppenbrouwer is the premier anaglypher maker around.  He  (almost) persuades  me that this (anaglyph)  format is totally viable and a usable  option for sharing on line images in 3-D... He has a following for sure.

If you are a member of Facebook there is an active Anaglyph group there whose link is: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Anaglyph/

You might consider posting your question to that group.

If I might toot my own horn a bit, I also create Anaglyphs and believe that this one turned out quite well, as is also the opinion of the members of that Anaglyph Facebook group:

Anaglyptic 3D image of the entrance to the spiral staircase of the George Peabody Conservatory of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

uuglypher wrote:

Thank you, Bill, for your reply and for posting your excellent anaglyph.

My basic question :

Is your posted anaglyph preferable, in any way, to the 3D effect gained by free viewing the image pair from which the anaglyph was prepared?

In other words, what is gained by going through the extra steps to produce an anaglyph from an already fully functional 3D image pair?

Thanks,

Dave

My response is that I'm not very adept at "free viewing". I agree that a 3D image pair provides a superior viewing experience to Anaglyph images, and I do enjoy viewing them in that format, but these are the steps I need to perform to view 3D image pairs:

1) Transfer or download the image pair to my cellphone

2) Start up the APP on my cellphone that displays the image pair. I use the APP 3DStereoPro

3) Use the menu selection in the APP to load the image pair for viewing

4) Insert the cellphone into the Google Cardboard Viewer

4) Place the Google Cardboard viewer on my head and over my eyes.

5) Fiddle with the position of the cellphone inside the viewer until the two stereo images are properly positioned for each eye.

6) Accept the fact that each eye is viewing a lower resolution image than if the entire cellphone screen were presenting the Anaglyph version of the image to both eyes.

I admit that I have been considering getting an old fashioned style stereoscopic viewer and printing my images out as stereo pairs for viewing to improve the image viewing quality and convenience.

Does not attract me at all. The best is a 6x6 cm pair or larger, viewed individually by stereoscope.  Maybe soon 4k or 5k  (or higher) smartphone or tablet screens can provide similar quality with stereoscopic headsets - not VR, but dedicated stereo ones.  Then up to 50% of my photography will be stereoscopic. But new sinchronized stereo camera will be needed too. My Fuji 3d is way too old and simple to say the least...

BillAngel wrote:

If you are a member of Facebook there is an active Anaglyph group there whose link is: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Anaglyph/

You might consider posting your question to that group.

If I might toot my own horn a bit, I also create Anaglyphs and believe that this one turned out quite well, as is also the opinion of the members of that Anaglyph Facebook group:

Anaglyptic 3D image of the entrance to the spiral staircase of the George Peabody Conservatory of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Well done. So many different colored lenses in the market. But mine work well for this shot.  Almost no ghosting of the colors.  Which is rare.  Hoppenbouwer has got it down too. Bravo to you.  A good subject as well. Elegant baroque staircase.  I would like one at home

uuglypher wrote:

I agree, It IS a TRULY beautiful image...but I’d love to be able to view the colored image pair from which the anaglyph was prepared.

and eye pain 

The anaglyph mode works. Seems like the standard software offers it as one selection,nay? If I had to choose, I would easily go for the individual pairs. Since for me I need no glasses and the color purity of the delicate shades is easier to discern. I state the obvious in following narrative if interested:

Each person owns a pair of eyes separated by about 67mm. and must be presented with each angle view in some way where the other eye view is obscured..so fusion in the brain is enabled...OK we agree so far.

From the earliest days of print stereo cards in late 1800s, a pair of angled lenses ( one lens sliced into segments actually vis Holmes models) was the standard method. Repeat the standard method for all stereo cards....Now, later on in 50s see the book' Stereo Realist Manual.' It came with a simple plastic eye viewer with the two prismatic lenses. And hundreds of side by side images spaced real close obviously. ( And earlier work by a chap named Judge also had images side by side but no more than a couple inches to avoid eye divergences, actually a physical impossibility! )

We have a strong case I think that a large body of folks, Dave, do not want a viewing aid for side by side. How many we will never really know..

But - now here is the interesting part - they will fancy a pair of red and cyan or red and blue spectacles. And maybe reading glasses behind them. If a prism viewer is unsuitable, and cross viewing is not in the cards and sbs is not learned I ask then: Why is wearing a colored pair of lenses over a reading glass a better choice...Hmm, beats me Dave. aloha GS

PS I am speculating that the eye pain comes from enlarging the staircase so that it is larger and trying to diverge the optical axes of eyeballs which come in 67-70 mm standard sizes..:-) Martin .Am I close to being on target?

Bashir Lunat wrote:

Bill, does this image need swapping let to right? Thanks.

No I don't think so. But the images would have to be swapped  for someone attempting to view them "cross eyed" without a Stereoscopic viewer.