Caravaggio anticipated 3D conversion?

IMO Caravaggio’s depth cues are eminently accessible for exaggeration for 3D conversion,

Comments?

Dave

Wayne; thanks for your (expected) comments, and I do agree, that “one click”is most impressive!

I might be discouraged if all comments were in the vein of yours, but I ‘m glad to report that most are definitely more favorable.

Can you apply that same “one click” to your landscapes to bring some dimensionality to the flat (“painted stage backdrop”) backgrounds and cardboarding of foreground objects? Or does the fact that you do not use it indicate that it is not a solution to those problems?

Obviously, our tastes differ as to what is deemed “natural appearance” of our respective, favored 3D illusions. I have to admit that I understand why what you call natural is frequently cited as the reason for “lost interest” in stereo photography by those whose interest had been (temporarily) piqued. Ah well, in a decade or two there will be another spurt of interest and your numbers will rise a bit…yet again for but a brief while.

May I add that I find your 2D landscapes and panoramas of your Wyoming environs to be breathtakingly gorgeous and obviously the product of an exceptionally sensitive eye!

Best regards,

Dave

Turbguy1 wrote:

Thank you for your appreciated comments! Yes, I find my "neighborhood" can be jaw dropping.

At times, I wonder if different individuals “see” the world differently from others.

For instance, does what my cortex provide as “red”, match what others perceive? Or, do they experience a blue-green? Or a “taste”of lime instead? Or “hear” a middle C? I suspect that perception is reasonably consistent throughout a major fraction of the population.

That said, I do suspect some individuals have a range of perception of depth and "roundness", that may permit distortions of flat scenes to be quite satisfactory.

A suggested test of some of your conversion examples would be to show not only your conversion of a 2D photograph, but also show a well-taken stereo pair of the same photograph. THEN ask the observer questions about “preferences” and “reality”.

Perhaps you may have performed such surveys?

I can try some one click conversions (done here)

http://convert.leiapix.com/#/

and see what happens!

Wayne,

You have but to ask!

This is a comparison I have on hand for just such requests.

There rarely is any question re: “preference” or “reality”.

I should note that I also cherry pick your Flicker gallery for fine art stereography examples as well!

Ain’t taste fascinating?

Dave

Turbguy1 wrote:

To my “eye”, I experience effective disparity at greater distances than you have marked on the true stereo pair For instance, using the original image file, there is a 6 pixel disparity between the distant Snowy Range Medicine Bow Mountains and the trees that I have annotated in the attached image. That is enough for my “eye” to easily discern depth from more distant elements. Of course, elements at further distances have reduced disparity. Elements with a disparity of about a pixel or so appear flat.

This hinges on image size. The original image is 2655 pixels wide by 2227 pixels high, per side. A full size printed image at 300 DPI would be 8.85” x 7.42 high, per side. As image size is reduced (particularly on an electronic screen), the disparity is reduced and depth experience at greater element distances is more difficult to discern. If the full sized image were reproduced with a actual field of view that matched the original field of view, realism would be further enhanced.

As I attempt to fuse your conversion, it honestly appears quite flat, perhaps with some warpage of a flat plane. All of the “nitty-gritty” roundness and solidity details of the foreground rock has disappeared. Additionally, there are details at the bottom of the conversion that do not have matching details between sides (the bottom of the frame has some disturbing artifacts that I have difficulty overlooking).

Do note that in the past I had utilized a wide fuzzy border to help mask any window violations in the foreground elements I might overlook during alignment. I still do, but nowadays I use a narrower fuzzy border.

You might wish to apply a conversion to the original file. You can download it here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F-9GR8HHwooHmDLlpLYFHSF1qI00UDJR/view?usp=sharing

Regards,

Wayne

Sorry

, Wayne,

Yor BG (beyond my dotted line) still appears dead flat to me as observed in your posted  gallery … and however viewed.

And by the way , your criticism of non-matchng edge details has to make me laugh! You must surely get a migraine trying to merge your two images given the failure of edge detail correspondence therein. ( see attached evidence)

One again, I must marvel at the fact that there is no such thing as “one illusion” perceived by two sets of eyes!

And an online critic I use did say of your image pair ”one heckuva great 3D effect in those rocks” but offered no further comment, kind fellow that he is!

Best regards,

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

uuglypher wrote:

Turbguy1 wrote:

To my “eye”, I experience effective disparity at greater distances than you have marked on the true stereo pair For instance, using the original image file, there is a 6 pixel disparity between the distant Snowy Range Medicine Bow Mountains and the trees that I have annotated in the attached image. That is enough for my “eye” to easily discern depth from more distant elements. Of course, elements at further distances have reduced disparity. Elements with a disparity of about a pixel or so appear flat.

This hinges on image size. The original image is 2655 pixels wide by 2227 pixels high, per side. A full size printed image at 300 DPI would be 8.85” x 7.42 high, per side. As image size is reduced (particularly on an electronic screen), the disparity is reduced and depth experience at greater element distances is more difficult to discern. If the full sized image were reproduced with a actual field of view that matched the original field of view, realism would be further enhanced.

As I attempt to fuse your conversion, it honestly appears quite flat, perhaps with some warpage of a flat plane. All of the “nitty-gritty” roundness and solidity details of the foreground rock has disappeared. Additionally, there are details at the bottom of the conversion that do not have matching details between sides (the bottom of the frame has some disturbing artifacts that I have difficulty overlooking).

Do note that in the past I had utilized a wide fuzzy border to help mask any window violations in the foreground elements I might overlook during alignment. I still do, but nowadays I use a narrower fuzzy border.

You might wish to apply a conversion to the original file. You can download it here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F-9GR8HHwooHmDLlpLYFHSF1qI00UDJR/view?usp=sharing

Regards,

Wayne

Sorry

, Wayne,

Yor BG (beyond my dotted line) still appears dead flat to me as observed in your posted gallery … and however viewed.

And by the way , your criticism of non-matchng edge details has to make me laugh! You must surely get a migraine trying to merge your two images given the failure of edge detail correspondence therein. ( see attached evidence)

One again, I must marvel at the fact that there is no such thing as “one illusion” perceived by two sets of eyes!

And an online critic I use did say of your image pair ”one heckuva great 3D effect in those rocks” but offered no further comment, kind fellow that he is!

Best regards,

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

Sorry, Wayne, I had meant to address your comment re: the “six pixel difference”.

the paradoxical advantage of geometric transformational 2D-to-3D conversion is that a graded detail size disparity is imposed that accentuates -exaggerates, actually, the detail size differences commensurate with their relative positions in the transformed image as the significant disparities from the comparable positions in the base image. Hence the effortless perception of discernible depths compared with tthe ortho stereographic image pair. Yes, count pixels and there are differences…but not enough and not sufficiently comparable to those in the foreground to provide the slightest functional ease in perception of differentiable depths in the backgrounds.

Best regards,

Dave

Turbguy1 wrote:

Welcome to the stereo window!

Without custom borders, using traditional rectangular formats, that is not only the result, it is the expected result. As you would observe, peering out a rectangular window.

I guess we can blame film (and a whole bunch of artwork) for that "tradition".

Does it "bother" you?

You might find using custom frames more pleasing. Try the photostream here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stereotron/

If you cannot observe the disparity I pointed out, then we must agree to disagree.

Viewing larger image size might help.

No, it does not bother me, what does bother me is your trying to “re-frame” the discussion.

To re-focus:

You explicitly pointed out non-corresponding details near the edges of some of my image pairs, complaining of discomfort in viewing such pairs…. but you do not hesitate to post image  pairs with at least as many if not more non-correspondence of edge details. Neither your non-corresponding details nor mine are a “bother” to me. I’ve long since learned to look past and ignore such incidental drek. It just seems that  if one complains of clutter on my side of the fence, they ought be sure they don’t similarly offend on their side?

Fair’s fair?

No need for a distracting discourse on framing ; interesting but not appropos your original complaint.

uuglypher wrote:

Turbguy1 wrote:

Welcome to the stereo window!

Without custom borders, using traditional rectangular formats, that is not only the result, it is the expected result. As you would observe, peering out a rectangular window.

I guess we can blame film (and a whole bunch of artwork) for that "tradition".

Does it "bother" you?

You might find using custom frames more pleasing. Try the photostream here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stereotron/

If you cannot observe the disparity I pointed out, then we must agree to disagree.

Viewing larger image size might help.

No, it does not bother me, what does bother me is your trying to “re-frame” the discussion.

To re-focus:

You explicitly pointed out non-corresponding details near the edges of some of my image pairs, complaining of discomfort in viewing such pairs…. but you do not hesitate to post image pairs with at least as many if not more non-correspondence of edge details. Neither your non-corresponding details nor mine are a “bother” to me. I’ve long since learned to look past and ignore such incidental drek. It just seems that if one complains of clutter on my side of the fence, they ought be sure they don’t similarly offend on their side?

Fair’s fair?

No need for a distracting discourse on framing ; interesting but not appropos your original complaint.

if of interest, we certainly could have a discussion on the effects of disproportionate encroachment of masks (frame edges) upon perceived subject depths relative to frame level.

Turbguy1 wrote:

That may be appropriate.

Please, begin.

it was already started, but subtly, and nobody picked up on it. There’s more there now too chew on.

see:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65295768

Turbguy1 wrote:

Framing is forced on us in any photography. Stereophotography moves framing into a "third dimension".

I seem to recall specifically commenting being disturbed by lack of homologous details at the bottom of your post, not the sides.

As I said, welcome to the (constraints) of the (rectangular) stereo window.

A huge fraction of stereophotographers recognize the stereo window, and demand it is to be "respected".

In general, no element of a well-done stereophoto should be displayed in front of the selected Z axis position of the frame (which is easily adjustable), while simultaneously contacting/intersecting the frame. Lack of homologous image elements at the top or bottom of the frame can be disturbing, and indicate poor alignment effort.

Some stereophotographers even posit that NO element should be displayed in front of the frame, even if it does not contact/intersect the frame. Those special "pop-out" cases should be carefully selected.