Blue Ridge Mtn. Wildlife

It actually strains my eyes to attempt to fuse.  The edges will not fuse.  However, if I transform it like so...

Then I get a very comfortable image...

I also cannot, -no matter how I try, to get this pair to fuse. Not at all even

So, how was it made may I ask. If you care to give more- info. Simulated 3-D, conversion?

Because got to say it does not seem to be made stereoscopically as a close up. That is my C and C.

Sorry. Does not work for me even a little sir. Possibly you started with a flat photo and are tried the conversion thing....if so, this one  just didn't ring the bell ....IMO.

Yes, the adjustments cancelled out the distortions introduced by your conversion operations. Apparently you began with a 2D image, as that’s what resulted when auto-aligned with one click with SPM.

Regarding the remaining discussion, I have to be adamant that true, accurate 3D/stereoscopic imaging contains disparities in the horizontal plane ONLY. I consider the introduction and presence of significant (greater than say, 1%) vertical disparities as errors in stereoscopic display, to be eliminated, or rejected, for display. My reasoning (other than obvious viewing discomfort it does induce in most observers) is that we have binocular eyes, oriented strictly in a horizontal plane. So do most other high level species. I won’t touch on creatures with plenoptic eyes.

The Bonsai image has some obvious defects, as it was not taken simultaneously. For instance, the cloud shadows have some issues.

That said, there are some exceptions. One of which is a stereo still image that contains specular reflections, such as from a wavy surface of water. While retinal rivalries become common with these reflections, at times there can also be localized vertical disparities. This issue at work is it is a still image of a rapidly moving scene. Without that motion, the still image can appear both “odd”, and still be realistic, as elements surrounding these reflections have the required, and true, horizontal disparity.

Some portion of the population have defects in binocular vision (such as ambliopia, or poor ocular muscle control). They may have experienced vertical disparities due to such maladies, and have grown to accommodate their vision in ways unexpected by those with normal vision. This might be at work with any that find your wildlife conversion as realistic, or even viewable without discomfort. I have normal vision, and I find that conversion very uncomfortable to attempt to fuse, as I see the entire image to be fused at once, with no accommodation for localized distorted areas that will not fuse with the overall image.

Certainly there are operations that could be performed to your wildlife image that would produce a comfortable and realistic stereoscopic image. These operations should be based solely on inducing appropriate horizontal disparities in the stereo pair. Can you attempt that?

Dave: I see an image with good potential for stereoscopic 3d content.

I had two impressions upon first viewing the pair.  1. there was some kind of uncomfortable misalignment.  2. there was precious little, if any, actual 3d visible.  I tried both "cross-eyed" and "parallel" free viewing the pairs.  This reinforced my perception of little to no 3d.

Then I went on to read the remainder of the discussion so far.  It seems you converted this from a flat photograph?

In my years as a 3d photographer, I've found that nature subjects - especially macro or close-up - are especially well suited to benefit from true stereoscopic image capture and display.  It follows thus that 3d conversion of such imagery can be especially disappointing: as we notice the "fakeness" of the depth, structural complexity, textures, reflectivity, semi-transparency, etc.  even if they are rendered fairly well.   (which in this case they are not).

I encourage you to try your hand at creating a true stereoscopic image.  You'll obtain much greater satisfaction!   It's not that hard to do, even when using only one single-lens camera.

No matter how hard you work at it, uuglypher, you can not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.   I would urge you to try your hand at two lens, two image photography.  It is fun.  It works.  It is rewarding.  And it can give pleasure to others.   And preserve memories of people and places long gone.

Cross pair. Paris 1960. Stereo Realist F 3.5 on Kodachrome 25 film.