2d-t-3D conversion- opinions on two pairs please

opinions please.

Dave

To me there is no difference, they both look the same.  Maybe a photo that has more depth would help.

some perceive a significant difference in depth between the two pairs, and can easily differentiate the two.

I’ll hope more responses, an wlll also  start another thread with a different pair.

Thanks for participating.

Dave

Really?

in two months why  has only one person examined the posted image pairs and responded? And has no one perceived a difference in in depth illusions provided by these two image pairs?

C,mon, gang,  let’s have more input..
uuglypher

"100% of the shots you don't take don't go in!"
Wayne Gretzky

Thank you, rmexpress22,

sample B is most often noted as lacking the “through-the-frame” effect so strongly shown in sample A.

Best regards,

Dave

uuglypher wrote:

Thank you, rmexpress22,

sample B is most often noted as lacking the “through-the-frame” effect so strongly shown in sample A.

Best regards,

Dave

The “through the frame” effect was introduced here just to see if anyone was paying attention and by way of introducing discussion on the relative effects of different  degrees of encroachment of E and W edge masks upon the image subject.

Evidently,, no one was, in fact, paying attention. /;>)

And so, now having been given the go-ahead by our Moderator let’s give it another go and view some examples of the effects of mask encroachments upon image subject:

Dave

Comments?

Discussion?

Slings and arrows?

Turbguy1 wrote:

Of the two, the top has more "3D effect" to my eye, although the subject elements appear somewhat flat (no "solidness" in the body, no "z" difference between the BIF and the background).

yep! Two people can view the same image pair and perceive very different 3D illusions!

The frame edges have been adjusted to place the scene in different "z" positions with respect to the image.

Right! Do you have a particular pattern of masking you follow for different effects?
Do you find that some images benefit more form frame adjustment than do others?

Dave

Turbguy1 wrote:

My frames are all rectangular, equally sized for left and right views, and are meant to be perceived as a flat plane (all frame edges at an equal z-position).

To most viewers using an electronic screen, they should appear to be at the plane of the viewing screen itself (YMMV).

The "interior" image elements are placed so either all are at, or behind, the frame edges, OR some may project at a z-position above the screen (closer to the viewer) without any such image element intersecting any portion of the frame (hopefully, sometimes I overlook a blade of grass or small detail).

Does this make sense?

Of course it does! You have a personal preference and vision and make every effort to adhere to it. Couldn’t be more reasonable.

For me, "A".

tony brown wrote:

For me, "A".

Hey, Tony!

Many thanks for bringing this back to my original question!

you are now duly registered as preferring example A. Is that a gut feeling or do you have an objective reason for your preference?

Good t’hear from you, Man!

Dave

uuglypher wrote:

tony brown wrote:

For me, "A".

Hey, Tony!

Many thanks for bringing this back to my original question!

you are now duly registered as preferring example A. Is that a gut feeling or do you have an objective reason for your preference?

Good t’hear from you, Man!

Dave

It was fairly marginal but the lower wing tip looked genuinely in front of the background hill in image A and the stereo effect was much less, if at all, in image B.

tony brown wrote:

uuglypher wrote:

tony brown wrote:

For me, "A".

Hey, Tony!

Many thanks for bringing this back to my original question!

you are now duly registered as preferring example A. Is that a gut feeling or do you have an objective reason for your preference?

Good t’hear from you, Man!

Dave

It was fairly marginal but the lower wing tip looked genuinely in front of the background hill in image A and the stereo effect was much less, if at all, in image B.

Thanks for your comments, Tony.

The bottom line re: these two image pairs is that the image pairs are identical -as identical as cut-and-paste can make them identical.

The difference?

The difference lies solely in the degree of encroachment of the East margin of the frames to the near wingtips of the two pairs.

When the space between the near wingtip of the left eye image to the frame margin is less than that space in the right eye image, the near wing will appear strongly “thru the frame” (as in pair A)

When that space in the left eye image exceeds the space in 5he right eye image, the whole bird recedes back below the level of the frame. (as in pair B)

Cool, eh?