a refined 2D-to-3D conversion technique

comments? critiques?

Dave

Looks good. Question is how you are doing it?

threed123 wrote:

Looks good. Question is how you are doing it?

Th@nks, Threed;

I’m waiting for some more objective comments/critiques before broaching technique.

Best regards,

Dave

Here’s another set prepared by the same technique.

Comments? Critiques?
Dave

Turbguy1 wrote:

I found it somewhat uncomfortable (although possible) to fuse. When auto-aligning the pair with SPM, it removed all the distortions applied to the "original", by the following corrections:

and the result was almost dead flat (with a slight tilt of a flat plane towards the bottom):

Insert caption here. If you do not edit this text it will be automatically removed.

So it appears that most of the "conversion" was performed by distorting the original along the vertical axis.

Hi, Wayne,

As is the usual case with those of us over age 65, only 27% are reported* to experience full binocular depth perception (BDP) ; the remaining 73% ranged between just subnormal BDP to “stereo blind”*. Our BDP, on average, begins to decline in our fifth decade , and among those functions that often evidence age-related decline is ease of foveation of disparity displacements other than horizontal ( diagonal and vertical).. The geometric transformations involved in the examples of 2D-to-3D conversion I posted in my original post do, indeed, impose some vertically and diagonally displaced disparities. As you demonstrate, elimination of most vertical and diagonal disparities result in an almost “flat” 3D illusion. If this forum includes any participant in their 40s or younger (who would likely be more competent foveators of vertical and diagonally displaced disparities) I would be eager to read of their degree of viewing success with the 3D image pairs I posted initially. Note that the image pair posted herewith (made with a standard technique used with anaglyphs) provides more realistic depth than does the pair you posted.

*Wright LA, Wormald RPL. Stereopsis and ageing. Eye 1992;6:473-6.

Best regards,

Dave

Here’s the image pair intended to have been included with the previous s post!

Sorry for the lapse!

Hi, Wayne,

Thanks for looking and commenting.

I’m glad to hear that vision therapy got your diplopia under control. They can often do wonders rehabilitating binocular depth perception in geriatric patients.

I, too, experienced occasional diplopia as well as some minor foveation problems, but a week of regular bead-on-the-string workouts got me back in shape. Since then I have discovered that I usually prefer the results of crossed view over those of parallel, which was my standard viewing techniques for years.

Your comment re: fusing images “all over the place” suggests that the visual training has helped improve your foveation such that you are no longer as insistant on exclusively horizontal disparity displacements as you have been in the past.

I have a routine vision work-up scheduled for July and will have BDP checked. As for Frisby test. It has been well over a decade since that was used with me. I only remembered the name because of the “Mother Frisby pie tin” game The result, by the way, was the comment : “ Well, you certainly have no problems with stereopsis; few are as lucky as

you!” This time I’ll be savvy enough to ask for more specifics.

Here are a few more examples of 2 D-to-3D conversions of mostly en face portraits for your comments.

Best regards,

Dave

Hi, Wayne,

All are easy and effortless  to fuse - no discomfort until for  long foveation over ~ 30 seconds.

Given that when we foveate at our over-the-shoulder extremes of NW, NE, SE, AND SW we unconsciously incorporate some head tilt in our foveational neuromuscular g6mnastics before we actually turn our body toward the otherwise almost excessively peripheral point of attention… so 0lease 3x use me for having disobeyed your instruction/ suggestion re: head tilt!

Hi, Wayne,

Here ‘s a “big step” set of increasing angular displacements from 0° to 24°.Most viewers will report some discomfort to inability to fuse somewhere within this series.

Most of them report the angle that is their end-point fused for five to ten seconds before becoming uncomfortable and then breaking up soon after that.

The point is that in routine viewing of our surroundings we change our sequential point of attention three to four times per second. We thus skip across occasional high angles of disparity without notice.

When viewing 3D image pairs containing points of excessive angular disparity we often find ourselves dwelling beyond the usual fraction of a second- and then, finally, often with discomfort - on those points of discomfort!

Just a point to consider.

Dave