Your opinions, please:

Please register your evaluation before reading other responses.

Please grade this image pair by the following scale:

a. no 3D effect

b. slight 3D effect

c. moderate 3D effect

d. strong 3D effect

Any other comments and critiques are welcomed.
Many thanks,

Dave Graham

Thank you, Brian for your input.

Dave

Please, when viewing a 3D quad arrangement such as this,

the top (smaller) pair is for parallel view, and

the bottom (larger) pakora is for crossed view.

Thankx

Dave Graham

Somewhere between b and c.

The bird’s right wing and body work well, but I find the left wing (closest to camera) looks much flatter. I’d have expected it to protrude very strongly.

Thank you, Brian; I appreciate your having another look!

Dave

The text is not properly positioned. For a proper depth, the text from upper pair must be changed with the text of lower pair.

I fail to see a problem related to the credit text. Are you viewing the top pair by parallel gaze and the bottom pair by crossed gaze?

3D Gunner wrote:

The text is not properly positioned. For a proper depth, the text from upper pair must be changed with the text of lower pair.

Yes. I know how to look at this kind of pictures.
By example, if you look with your eyes crossed at the bottom picture, is easy to observe the text is a little inside the background (inside the hill), and in the same time outside the hill in the upper picture. And vice versa.
Also, the positioning error is easily observed between position of the text relative to some reference elements in the background.

uuglypher wrote:

Please register your evaluation before reading other responses.

Please grade this image pair by the following scale:

a. no 3D effect

b. slight 3D effect

c. moderate 3D effect

d. strong 3D effect

Any other comments and critiques are welcomed.
Many thanks,

Dave Graham

Top Pair mild 3D

Bottom Pair, good 3D, bird actually appears to be above the surface of my laptop.

Were these shot as pairs, or single image converted?

Cheers

Thanks for your response, 82Virago.
This pair is the result of the left eye view having been copied and modified by geometric transformation to introduce specific patterns of detail disparities with horizontal, diagonal, and vertical disparities within the image. The disparities are incorporated by our cortical visual center to configure the 3D illusion presented to our conscious perception.

It has become obvious that most young to middle aged viewers can easily and comfortably perceive the 3D effect from such 2d-to-3D conversions, while, for example, only a distinctly smaller proportion of those over the age of 65 can effectively view them.

I would appreciate knowing your age to add to my data base.

Best regards,

Dave

Dave,

No problem, I am 58, and usually have no problem seeing '3D'

I have created a few by modding in photoshop, but usually shoot 2 frames. Most of the time I use vertical framing as it is easier to get them to converge.

I used to do them with slides and then just put them into the little hand held viewers, one for each eye.

I wonder how your technique would work with astro photos. It would be cool to get a galaxy to look 3D.

Cheers

Hi, Virago

Thanks for the personal info,

Her is an image pair prepared from a Hubble telescope image found on a Hubble website.

This  image pair ( SBS for parallel view) does nicely reveal this galaxy’s surfacial contours but, IMO, requires more refinement of the specific technique used to produce it. I have just begun  experimenting with complementary homologous and complementary heterologous transformations and there is much refinement necessary before the complementary technique is ready to be included in the book!

Please let me know what you think of this pair.

Best

Hi, Wayne,
Thanks for registering your opinion on this galactic pair.  
Would you also  please comment on the image pair originally posted in this  thread - the crane in flight.

Come to think of it, I checked back and find that you have never mentioned your age. It would be a helpful addition to my data set if you would consent to do so.

many thanks,

Dave

That is pretty cool! I can definitely see texture and depth.

It is a good thing this works, imagine try to shoot 2 frames spaced apart, like a million miles apart!

I have thought of doing the moon from 2 separate locations an hour apart or working with someone in a different location.

If you have or do one with the moon, I would love to see it. When I finally get my killer M31 shot, maybe we can look at doing it.

Cheers

Hi, Virago,

Here’s a moon pulled from the internetI did some time ago

and meant to work on to correct the out-of-round problem,

But you

do get an idea of what can be done. If you have a closer view

it would be fun to see what could be done with surface crater contours.

Best regards,

Dave

This moon one is interesting. If I view in a small version, it looks as though it is pushed into the center. Think stepping on a tennis ball.

If I view it at the largest size, it appears as though painted on a glass ball, the backside and I view the details through the glass.

Cheers