Aeolian Features

Aeolian, Schemolian...that’s just the result of long-term abrasion bu wind-borne sand!

Reasonable 3D effect, but you probably used two exposures, right. 3D conversion of your left eye image turned out really well.

Cheers,

Dave

Turbguy1 wrote:

As an aside..

Perhaps this image is the effect you are desirous of, as the distant clouds actually have depth/solidity to a degree. Achieved by differential horizontal cloud motion between shots.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/turbguy/48209609691/in/dateposted-public/

Nice try...clouds are at a distinct depth beyond the rock formation...

BUT:

are completely lacking, themselves, in depth distinction: Note complete registration of ALL cloud details in the superimposition. This is quite different from depth distinctions within cloud backgrounds in monocular depth cue 3D imagery.

here are the super impositions:

Sorry, Wayne, From your anaglyph I get no more sense of depth in the clouds than I do from your original image. When size matched and superimposed, then registration of any one cloud detail results in registration of every other cloud detail. (see superimposition below).The faint ghosting in the cloud in your anaglyph is the result of mismatched size > artificial spatial disparity rather than any hint of evidence of actual spatial disparity due to horizontal parallax of binocular imagery. You did a super job exposing to capture the maximum tonal spectrum of the clouds, but that’s just a monocular cue to illusory depth provided by any good 2D image.

Also below are are two different monocular depth cue 3D conversions - produced by two different transformation algorithms - both of which provide excellent discernible depths in cloud detail perceptible by appropriate viewing by any adult with normal vision.

One has proportionately more horizontal detail disparities than the other (which has a higher proportion of vertical disparities). Thus,  I expect that you, particularly,  will find one easier to view than the other. Individuals with normal foveational range (with independent control of eye movements in both x and y axes - normally attained by late adolescence) have no problems comfortably merging such monocular cue 3D conversions. There obviously are some so able in this forum, as well as some who just as obviously aren’t.

Best regards,

Dave

Wayne, you wrote:

“To my vision, the red annotated grey cloud is clearly “in front of” the whiter, larger cloud. Do you experience this??”
Sure, the “...grey cloud is clearly in front of the whiter, larger cloud” but it is only the relative effect of the monocular depth cue of edge occlusion as evident in any 2D image.

and referring to the 3D conversions:

As for “...a clear depth difference between the sandstone formation edges and the clouds...” ? That is, to my eye, a distinct difference between the two conversions. If you don’t see it...I can’t explain it in terms of normal visual abilities.

And...as for your reliance upon unavoidable background cloud movement to contribute to a “disparity” of putative (read “imaginatively hopeful”) value in promoting stereopsis...to m eye it ain’t happening, Wayne!

Likewise, your color image pairs that I suppose are meant to illustrate the the same thing just don’t work. Compare them with my 3D conversion of your left eye view. In my opinion the 3D conversion provides a  more realistic stereo effect evident in both the terrain and in the sky, don’t you agree?

And by the way, Wayne, what is your purpose in recommending Julesz’s book on the “Cyclopean eye” concept and to whom are you recommending it?

Dave

sorry...here are the 3D conversions:

uuglypher wrote:

Wayne, you wrote:

“To my vision, the red annotated grey cloud is clearly “in front of” the whiter, larger cloud. Do you experience this??”
Sure, the “...grey cloud is clearly in front of the whiter, larger cloud” but it is only the relative effect of the monocular depth cue of edge occlusion as evident in any 2D image.

and referring to the 3D conversions:

As for “...a clear depth difference between the sandstone formation edges and the clouds...” ? That is, to my eye, a distinct difference between the two conversions. If you don’t see it...I can’t explain it in terms of normal visual abilities.

And...as for your reliance upon unavoidable background cloud movement to contribute to a “disparity” of putative (read “imaginatively hopeful”) value in promoting stereopsis...to m eye it ain’t happening, Wayne!

Likewise, your color image pairs that I suppose are meant to illustrate the the same thing just don’t work. Compare them with my 3D conversion of your left eye view. In my opinion the 3D conversion provides a more realistic stereo effect evident in both the terrain and in the sky, don’t you agree?

And by the way, Wayne, what is your purpose in recommending Julesz’s book on the “Cyclopean eye” concept and to whom are you recommending it?

Dave

WOW!  Nice set!  Beautiful effect!

Ah hah! You DID read Julesz’s book.

Yes, you displaced the displaced, angled slab of sedimentary rock.

The projection above (or recession below...depending on viewing style) is evident from 5 pixels displacement on up.

Here is a more traditional Julesz RDS. Can you see it!

Congrats, Wayne....you are spot-on...AND ..it’s proof you can foveate vertical disparities!

I was sure you had it in ya!

Yes in deedy, them RDSs do come in handy!

That’s a super series, Wayne, and I would love, with your permission, and with full attribution to you, to use it in an Appendix of my book.

You remind me of a fellow in my “viewers’ stable” who, like you, is firmly wedded to horizontally displaced disparities ( in his case due to anisometropic refractive differences). If I send him some images with strong vertical disparities he has to turn them 90° to be able to perceive the 3D effect.

Now, as to your image series:

I can view and merge the entire series easily and comfortably. I went through it first to confirm that ALL merged comfortably and that ALL yielded bathopsis (stereopsis) as well, and then took a break for a cuppa. Then went back with my old darkroom timer and viewed and merged each angle example for a full two minutes each, foveating details in center, each corner, and all edges when ever corresponding detail points were extant. No discomfort whatsoever was experienced with any of the pairs.

The reason, I am absolutely sure, is that the disparities are all of a mild degree of displacement, regardless of direction.

Now I fully recognize that some of my 3D conversions that exhibit stronger khóropsis and stereopsis do so due to more pronounced diagonal and vertical displacements, and can be predicted to cause some discomfort in some viewers with prolonged viewing.

I superimposed your pairs for foveation mapping and all revealed only very mild challenges to sequential foveation saccades.

I am curious as to the focal length used for this image...normal? short? long? long macro? It makes a difference and I am in the process of working out a predictive scale of relative effects on khóropsis and stereopsis indices.

I am sending you a personal message with a series of images I’d like you to view. They are also from an Appendix

Regards,

Dave

I meant to include mention that the fellow who is intolerant of any but horizontal displacements and has anisometropia would be expected to have developed some degree of ability to foveate vertical disparities, but hasn’t ...Go figure!