[HN Gopher] Make a "Magic Eye" image using Excel
___________________________________________________________________
Make a "Magic Eye" image using Excel
Author : noiv
Score : 83 points
Date : 2024-12-04 19:36 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (divisbyzero.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (divisbyzero.com)
| matsemann wrote:
| > _This one shows a surface: the graph of a multivariable
| function._
|
| Almost think textbooks should utilize images like these, worked
| very well.
| thih9 wrote:
| Is there an app for "decoding" magic eye images like these? The
| output could be a 2 frame gif showing perspective from each
| eye[1], or a single image with depth of field simulated with some
| blur.
|
| Edit: found this https://piellardj.github.io/stereogram-solver/ ,
| it works well for single layer images; but it isn't great for 3d
| surfaces. Another one, though not online, seems better:
| https://github.com/MikhailPedus/AutostereogramSolver
|
| [1]: https://www.vexels.com/blog/stunning-3d-effect-with-
| gif-2-fr...
| a1o wrote:
| Is everyone able to see this? I have even played a game on itch
| that had these in real time, but these ones aren't "working" for
| me.
| mikojan wrote:
| Working on my computer
| waste_monk wrote:
| I was able to perceive all of them, using the "focus on
| something behind the plane of the monitor surface" technique
| (rather than the "bring your face up close and slowly move away
| while keeping your eyes focused the same" technique, which I
| find has been a bit hit-and-miss).
|
| I found that the p and [?] stereograms were easier for me than
| the graph ones, as it's easier to snap to focus once you
| recognise the general outline of the shape. The graph ones were
| a bit harder for me, although that may just be the colours
| used.
| Jimmc414 wrote:
| I used to be able to see these but as my nearsightedness
| progressed at some point I lost the ability.
| orphea wrote:
| The intended way (when image floats above background, closer to
| you) - no. I can see images if I cross eyes and let patterns
| merge. However, this way images appear below background and are
| harder to recognize.
| technion wrote:
| I remember when these things first came out and they were
| everywhere. I've never ever gotten them to work for me.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| Works easily for me. There are two types of stereograms (cross-
| eyed and parallel) so perhaps you had success with the other
| type. I believe this are parallel (aka "wall-eyed".)
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| Every single time I tried it in the past, I failed. I never got
| them to work for me.
| acomjean wrote:
| These posters were around in the 90s. After a few tries I "got
| it" and was able to see them. It was frustrating initially.
|
| Popular enough to be on Seinfeld.
|
| https://youtu.be/Uy9D0lO_0y0?t=38&si=f9zczm_noVd9hsmN
|
| "Computers make these.. big computers"
| fweimer wrote:
| When I was younger, my ophthalmologist was still testing for
| depth perception through binocular disparity (the parallax
| effect, I think). I could pass those tests (although my mother
| is in the 20% or so of the population that can't do it), but I
| never could see those stereoscopic images for some reason.
|
| I haven't been tested for many years, but I assume I have lost
| this type of depth perceptiion due to monovision after cataract
| surgery. I still have functional depth perception, but it must
| rely on other clues these days. And I still can't see
| stereoscopic images.
|
| At least there are tools now that can undo the process by which
| these images are produced.
| sim7c00 wrote:
| i get colourful snow and a headache trying to make my eyes do
| things. it just blurs and unblurs :'(
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| Seems not everyone, and it appears that seeing them is a
| combination of skill and vision.
|
| Never been able to see them, but my eves have different enough
| vision that it is hard to make them work together at certain
| distances.
| ndr42 wrote:
| I had my eyes focused to see the hidden image the same way I
| always do. But this time I was scrolling the picture on an iPad
| and the next one was coming up and it was directly in focus and
| the next one too.
|
| This was real incredible - no need to focus again - it is like
| living in this hidden world.
|
| If you never experienced this I recommend to try it - at least
| for me it was a wow moment.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| I drive Curiosity and that's how I often view our raw downlink
| images. They aren't stereograms, but the left and right eyes
| are next to each other on the report, so I just cross my eyes
| to get the stereo and scroll the page. Works great but despite
| my trying to spread the good word I think I'm the only rover
| planner who does this.
| pavlov wrote:
| _> "I drive Curiosity"_
|
| "What kind of SUV is that? He can't mean... Oh, he does...!
| Holy s**t"
| andai wrote:
| "My other car is Curiosity."
| jasmcole wrote:
| Wow! I just checked your CV (we were at Cambridge at the same
| time :) ), and I will never dismiss a Geography degree again!
| gorlilla wrote:
| Too late.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| It might be overkill but a VR headset would make that
| significantly easier for people.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| We actually use NVIDIA 3D Vision 2 in 3D simulation
| environments during planning. It's great but quite hard to
| keep it working because NVIDIA doesn't support it any more.
| Our software falls back to analgyph for systems that can't
| run the 3D Vision and I end up using anaglyph a lot and
| it's totally fine.
|
| We've experimented with VR a bit but it hasn't caught on
| yet. We've also been trying a few other 3D display
| technologies.
| ramses0 wrote:
| Stupid funny-pages trick: "Spot the Differences", you can
| cross your eyes and the things that "shimmer" are the
| differences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spot_the_differenc
| e#Solving_te...
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| ChatGPT can't read stereograms yet, so this would be a nice
| captchas, if only most humans could read them too.
| ramon156 wrote:
| I'm trying man. I just don't get how it works
| pavlov wrote:
| Voight-Kampff test but it's just staring at stereograms with
| sweat glistening on your forehead.
|
| It's unfortunate that so many humans were initially retired,
| but it was also helpful in motivating the population to finally
| figure out Magic Eye.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Oh, so the image was a tortoise upside down? Now I see it
| jonhohle wrote:
| Tortoise? What's that?
| syncsynchalt wrote:
| You know what a U+1F422 is?
| andai wrote:
| I think you can decode a stereogram into the depth map with
| like 5 lines of Python, but it's been a while since I've played
| around with this stuff.
|
| Meaning, maybe GPT can't (yet) see magic eye images, but it
| shouldn't have trouble building itself a prosthetic that allows
| it to see them.
| starshadowx2 wrote:
| > You shoud see a flat background with one large copy of the
| letter p floating a little above the background (closer to you).
|
| To me these all look like they're reversed from what this says,
| like they're further away from me behind the flat part.
| rokkamokka wrote:
| I believe this depends on if you focus "beyond" or "in front"
| of the image
| stabbles wrote:
| You should focus behind it instead of looking cross-eyed.
| aclindsa wrote:
| Could we... make a gif of these?
| andai wrote:
| https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stereogram_Tut_Ani...
| gcanyon wrote:
| Have stereograms advanced in some way over the past 30 years? I
| know how silly that sounds, but: I remember back in the day when
| the fad first broke, spending minutes, many minutes, trying "get"
| it. And having to focus (heh) on focusing my eyes. And sometimes
| failing. I haven't looked at a stereogram since then until now.
|
| And these were easy. The first one literally took 15 seconds to
| "drop in." The second maybe ten. The third was near-instant. The
| only one that gave me any trouble was the continuous function one
| like an egg crate, with no sharp edges, just dropping down and
| up. That took maybe twenty seconds, and once I recognized what I
| was looking for, it was easy.
|
| So has the technique changed/improved? Or has my brain changed?
| chime wrote:
| I recently learned that there are two views:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ParallelView/ vs
| https://www.reddit.com/r/CrossView/
|
| And there is definitely a difference between them. If you try
| to view a cross view image using parallel view, it will look
| weird and not be easy to focus. Maybe the egg crate image was
| different?
|
| Here's a quick test: https://i.redd.it/g5ilwgk99r781.jpg
|
| Parallel view is easy for me but it takes a bit of effort for
| me to see cross view. For cross view, I start by looking cross-
| eyed at my nose and then try to see the image without fully
| uncrossing my eyes.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Thanks for the link, I saw the Tokyo parallel view beautiful
| crispy for the first time, now I can't do it again, I guess
| my eyes became tired and need some time
| gcanyon wrote:
| I think the egg crate was harder because there were no sharp
| edges to latch onto.
| bfdm wrote:
| I have the opposite experience. Cross view is easy for me but
| focusing parallel view is very difficult to impossible.
|
| When I try to relax my eyes to look past the screen to start
| the parallel view (I think that's how it is done?) the image
| is too blurry to resolve. When I let my eyes adjust that,
| they fall apart to the separate images.
| Cannabat wrote:
| I've always been pretty quick to see the hidden image, but I
| could see these faster than ever - almost instantaneously, even
| the first one. I wonder if it's something to do with me having
| stared at a screen for a decade since the last time I saw a
| stereogram...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-08 23:01 UTC)