[HN Gopher] Stereographer
___________________________________________________________________
Stereographer
Author : msephton
Score : 46 points
Date : 2024-08-06 10:56 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.engineersneedart.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.engineersneedart.com)
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| Something not often considered is that cross-eyed stereograms
| allow for both better focus and (if desired by the artist) also
| stronger depth when someone is viewing the image without hardware
| assistance.
|
| The two unassisted viewing options for the majority of people are
| either crossing your eyes or looking _through_ the image to
| infinity. Intentional exotropia is completely off the table,
| because almost nobody can do that (because there 's no natural
| point to doing it, unlike crossing which is how you look at
| things near your face).
|
| And the problems with looking through the image to infinity are
| that
|
| 1) If the image is near you, you're now naturally _focusing_ far
| away, which means you 're not focusing up close on the image
| plane like you would be if your eyes were crossing, so the image
| is blurry without an unnatural muscle behavior.
|
| 2) If the image is meaningfully far away, the angular difference
| you can achieve between it and a horizon vanishing point is just
| too small to achieve overlap between the halves unless the image
| itself is very small, which you then won't be able to see anyway.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Of course I can't view cross-eyed stereograms, but I can look
| through the image. Likely the author is the same way?
|
| [edit]
|
| Some people have asked how I read things that are up close if I
| can't cross my eyes; I close one eye.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I have one of these
|
| https://www.kandaovr.com/qoocam-ego
|
| occasionally I've made a red-cyan anaglyph that has been really
| striking and I also view my stereograms with a Meta Quest 3.
| (Though I really want one of these to shoot pano
| https://us.kandaovr.com/products/obsidian-r)
|
| I've done a lot of debugging as to why some images don't work as
| well as I expect them to, the last discovery I made it is the Ego
| has a little bit of pincushion distortion so objects in the L and
| R channels don't line up perfectly vertically and my
| stereographer friends all think that's bad. (I am transitioning
| now from "bored of photography" to "biggest studio project ever"
| so maybe I will find time to photograph a grid and make a filter
| to undo the pincushioning)
|
| I think the best formula I've found for stereograms is a group
| portrait where the background is really far in the background. I
| slide the L/R channels horizontally to keep the image close to
| the paper which makes the image look like an ordinary photo but a
| little blurry/stylized but then you put on the glasses and wow.
| Other than that though it's been really hit or miss and I haven't
| really found "my vision" in stereography yet.
| DidYaWipe wrote:
| There's a way to build a 3-D adapter setup (with mirrors) for an
| SLR-style camera that actually splits the image across
| horizontally, so you get two wide images instead of two narrow
| ones. Not sure if that's useful for a stereoscope, however. For
| video or projection, it would be superior.
|
| 3-D pictures are very entertaining and atmospheric. I have a
| Kodak stereo camera that I've taken on trips to various countries
| since high school, and a 3-D projector and silver screen. With
| polarized glasses, you can walk right up to the screen and still
| see the depth.
|
| After seeing it, people almost always asked where they could get
| this or why it isn't used more.
|
| The movie studios deserve scorn for ruining the marketability of
| 3-D yet again by releasing one fake "3-D" movie after another, as
| we finally had really good and widespread 3-D projection
| available.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| The movie industry got stuck in a terrible place with 3-D as an
| "add on" to a regular movie that contextualizes 3-D as just
| another money grab. The trouble is somewhere around 5-10%
| people find stereo movies uncomfortable and 20% or so people
| are stereo blind and don't get anything out of them.
|
| So you have to show the same movie in both formats which, as it
| see it, is something that costs money instead of making money,
| and is only going to work for movies big enough and theaters
| big enough to be able to do that. (e.g. the multiplex at the
| mall is part of a chain that teeters on the edge of bankruptcy
| so the local arthouse theater sometimes shows movies like
| "Deadpool & Wolverine" in their first run)
|
| People associate 3-d with that kind of movie but actually the
| rapid cuts and motion of movies like that don't give your brain
| time to lock onto stereo whereas documentaries (see
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Station_3D) and dramatic
| content are really powerful.
|
| I have some software that works like Disney's multiplane camera
| (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplane_camera) that I
| use for synthesizing stereo scenes (and other things) and one
| problem that turns up is that the curvature of objects hides
| some pixels from one eye but not the other eye. You can't just
| cut some objects out of the scene and slide those parts
| relative to each other but you've got to have something for
| those pixels or make something up. The flip side of that
| however is that a stereo picture of a close up of a person
| shows maybe 10-15% more area of the face which means more of
| the little muscles that indicate emotion. You are seeing a
| little bit more in a 3-d movie just as you see a little bit
| more when you see actors on stage and even if you're not aware
| of it consciously I think it adds to your emotional reaction.
|
| (... so far that software has used a simple rendering approach
| but I'm very likely to upgrade it to do ray tracing because I
| want to get very accurate depth of field effects including
| occlusion)
| DidYaWipe wrote:
| "The movie industry got stuck in a terrible place with 3-D as
| an "add on" to a regular movie"
|
| Well, they didn't just "get stuck" there; they put themselves
| there. That was a choice. They should have shot in 3-D when
| they wanted to release in 3-D, and refrained from post-
| processed fake 3-D in all cases.
|
| Seth Rogan said that he and... I don't remember, maybe the
| director of Green Hornet wanted to shoot in 3-D and the
| studio turned them down. After it was done, the studio
| changed its mind and made it into fake 3-D.
|
| And yes, there's a misperception that "action" and
| "spectacle" movies are the best for 3-D. Wrong. The coolest
| 3-D pictures I've shot are often indoor scenes with lots of
| objects; for example, a long dinner table set with dishware
| and glasses, with an open door in the background revealing a
| cobblestone street.
|
| Most people scoffing at "3-D" have probably seen almost none
| of it. Many people have only seen one legitimate 3-D movie:
| Avatar. Otherwise they might have seen a Pixar movie rendered
| in 3-D; or if they're lucky, Hugo. Or the Transformers one
| where they tear up Chicago. Most did not see Drive Angry.
|
| Beyond that, I'm hard-pressed to name a modern movie shot in
| 3-D.
| munificent wrote:
| I've been feeling a lot of "the web is dying" lately. When I
| search for something, the results are often SEO glurge, AI-
| generated nonsense, AI-generated nonsense directly in the search
| results, or some unholy combination of all three where the search
| engine AI-generates some sort of summary based on decade-old
| bullshit SEO glurge.
|
| This article is a great reminder of what the web used to be and
| what some corners of the web still are: a smart, creative person
| using effort to share something they care about with the world.
|
| I don't want AIs giving me sanitized informational summaries. I
| want meaningful stories told by people.
|
| I love it.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| Have you tried https://search.marginalia.nu yet?
| munificent wrote:
| I've toyed around with it. I also use DuckDuckGo on my phone.
| They're OK.
| ofrzeta wrote:
| I would love to play around with some consumer 3D stuff. Either
| some kit to take anaglyphs or a 3D camera. The Nintendo 3DS has a
| 3D camera as far as I understand and several years ago 3D image
| cellphones where a thing, too
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D-enabled_mobile_phon...)
| This seems to have turned into a dead end, though. Oh, and the
| Lytro, too.
| hoherd wrote:
| The 3DS does indeed have a 3d camera, and it produces MPO
| files, so theoretically it should be perfect for use with this
| app.
| fitsumbelay wrote:
| phew, mans said "Lytro" ...
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I have a Lytro Illium and the software for it is supposed to
| make stereograms but so far I've failed to get any depth out of
| it.
|
| This
|
| https://www.kandaovr.com/qoocam-ego
|
| is probably the best easy-to-use stereo camera on the market
| today.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| In about the $300-ish range, the FUJIFILM (and a few Lumix)
| stereo cameras are still available on eBay.
| Gettingolderev wrote:
| You can also combine two images and flip them in a gif constantly
| to see it in 3d.
|
| Makes it a lot more accessable on the internet too :)
| dekhn wrote:
| Canon released a lens to simplify stereoscopy:
| https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf5-2mm-f2-8-l-dual-fisheye...
| Uncorrelated wrote:
| The Nintendo 3DS is presumably (with over 75 million units sold)
| the most popular camera that takes 3D photos in the MPO format.
| Unfortunately, the original 3DS's cameras are rather poor:
| absolutely dreadful dynamic range and tons of color noise.
| However, they did improve the cameras on the New Nintendo 3DS,
| which I've never owned. I've even considered making some homebrew
| to apply computational photography techniques on the 3DS to
| reduce noise and improve dynamic range, but I'm not at a point in
| my life where I can justify that right now.
|
| I was looking at my old 3DS photos just recently, and there's not
| much software to read MPO files, so this project looks pretty
| darn cool and I'll be checking it out.
|
| Something that I'm sure some people aren't aware of is that the
| 3DS's 640x480 photos don't match the resolution or aspect ratio
| of the 15:9 400x240 (800x240, but halved horizontally for 3D)
| screen, so the 3DS photo gallery actually shows photos zoomed in
| by default. If you didn't know this, now you can revisit your 3DS
| photos and see extra photo for free by pulling down on the circle
| pad.
|
| Edit: I should mention - I did say that there's not much software
| that reads MPO files, but one program that does is StereoPhoto
| Maker. https://stereo.jpn.org/eng/stphmkr/index.html I haven't
| tried it out yet, but it supports aligning and batch-processing
| 3D images, among other features.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I've got a New Nintendo 3DS. I took a nice stereogram at the
| Vietnam War Memorial at the National Mall with it but that's
| about it.
|
| My stereo production toolchain is based on PIL and PIL reads
| MPOs. An MPO is just two JPGs concatenated together so they
| aren't hard to read. My photog friends swear by Stereo Photo
| Maker but in my book it is "just another image processing
| program by people who don't understand gamma correction" but
| Adobe Photoshop is dangerously close to that category too.
| boutell wrote:
| This is great! I was once the proud owner of an HTC Evo 3D, a
| smartphone that took 3D photos and displayed them natively with a
| lenticular display. It also ran hot as hell and was pretty much
| unusable until I added after-market swipe-spelling and an
| alternative app browser. It also took MPO format pictures.
|
| As near as I could tell at the time, the MPO format is literally
| just two JPEGs directly appended in one file.
| sllabres wrote:
| A long time I used two small consumer cameras mounted on a rail
| side by side and combined the two photographs on my TV (which was
| 3D capable with simple passive goggles), which produced quite
| nice 3D photos.
|
| Triggering the two cameras was completely manual but worked
| almost all time, even when taking photos objects in slow motion,
| as example people o animals.
|
| For this part of photography experimenting it is a bit
| unfortunately that all TV builders abandoned the 3D capability of
| their TV sets.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-06 23:01 UTC)