Printable View
I'm starting this topic specifically for questions related to and methods for viewing hidden image stereograms.
This is a result of questions posted in the Stop and Post forums which tend to hijack the other posts in that topic.
In this topic members can discuss methods they use to make stereograms "pop" and ask questions about how stereograms work.
Gorgeous stuff, Gary! Seems like you're experimentations with transparency are paying off. Is this following your Valentine's heart?
I especially like the second and third ones because of the use of bright colors. One remark, though, with regards to the first one. The sides of the main cube seems to be off a bit, or is that intentional?
Off in what way? They look fine to me but I may be missing something.
The perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by gwpriester
Bones - Excellent. You've toned down your avatar by degrees. :)
Paul - The iPad is the perfect medium for viewing stereograms because it is razor sharp and bright. We have three iPad stereogram apps (http://www.eyeball-3d.com/). Two are for sale and will set you back $1.99 each :) and a free app that explains how stereograms work and how to view them.
I have found that a lot of people who have never seen a stereogram have been able to do so on the iPad.
Gary, maybe itīs because of the screen reflection?
I remember that some years ago i was able to see one that was framed behind glass. They told me to focus on my own reflection instead of focusing in the stereogram patterns. It worked, although i couldnīt see it anymore after that first time! I have to admit that i havenīt tried hard enough after that (i still have that stereogram).
Here on my PC i canīt see your stereograms and i have tried hard enough! The lack of reflections on my screen may have to do with it. All i know is that i always end up focusing on the pattern detail (thatīs quite nice, but not exactly what i intended!). Anyway i will keep trying.
MEB, I still have a hard time seeing them, altough I do see some depth now, but not the desired image in it. And I know now why, not my colorblindness but my lazy eye might be the problem, although it has been treated(you know taping of one eye) it is still not as it should be.
But I have no problem seing 3D in the theatre and with anaglyph, these seem to be a bit to hard for the 'not so lazy eye anymore' of mine.
Maybe that could be your problem too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boy
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwpriester
Do you understand my question? By perspective I mean the vanishing point rule, if that's the correct expression for what I see as being a bit off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boy
Boy - Yes, that's perfectly understandable. I'll have to try some foreshortening, though I am not quite certain how to do this in a stereogram. But then surely... :)
Niamh-Allan - I think that is a rather long title for an image. Did you mean to post the image? Or link to the image? And I see you list your software as Xara User. Which product or products do you use?Quote:
what you say about this 67157d1313293666-art-art-pic.jpg
The reflectivness of the ipad is most like exactly what helps many more to see the stereograms. I always had a hard time viewing them and often the only way I could see them was to go crosseyed! however one afternoon I was looking at one of Gary's stereograms on my laptop screen and the sun was coming in my window just right to cause a reflection and by looking into the reflection the stereogram popped right out! for a while after that I needed a reflection to help me see them but now I can see them without a reflection.
I wonder why that is Frances. Could it be that you focus on something on a different plane than the stereogram? If you focus on the stereogram you cannot see the 3D effect. It's like you have to focus I don't know where (in front of or in back of) in order for the magic to happen.
Great idea Gary,
I find sometimes that how the stereogram is displayed on the page can make a difference in how easy or difficult is to see them. For example here on the forums the pop up images with the dimmed backgrounds make it a lot easier than if the stereogram was embedded on a page with headings and text around it because for me at least other stuff on the page can draw your line of vision away from the stereogram and make it harder to maintain the focus.
Viewing stereograms is easier for me when they are flat as on screen or a flat page. I found the book binding in Gary's latest Startling Stereograms made some of them (in the middle pages) more difficult to see accurately. I may need to purchase a second copy so I can pull it apart so the pages can be flat. ;)
The attached image doesn't show...Quote:
Originally Posted by gwpriester
This thread is really confusing..
You're not wrong :confused:
Please don't blame me because I didn't start this thread. My first post was actually part of another thread in which I react to some of Gary's new stereograms. Even my second post was part of that thread. Now I'm also confused ... :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by pauland
That was in reference to a post by a new member who asked that but did not post an image. I suspect the member is not from this world as was just passing through.Quote:
what you say about this 67157d1313293666-art-art-pic.jpg
Also, in starting this topic (so as not to hijack the Stop and Post topic with stereogram viewing methods and comments), my original post got moved way down behind the other posts I transferred over. I am going to attempt to change this organization so the topic makes more sense.
OK. Thanks Mike for the suggestion. My original explanation for starting this topic is now in the #1 spot.
<scratches_head />
Do those of us that wear glasses talk them off to see the stereogram or leave the glasses on?Quote:
Originally Posted by gwpriester
I wouldn't be able to see which image was the stereogram if I took mine off...
I must keep mine on to see anything. ;)
Avalon - I suppose it depends on your level of vision. (Is that vague enough? ;) )
Need glasses?
Attachment 87971
http://www.eyetricks.com/3dstereo82.htm
I can actually see them better without my glasses but then mine are just for reading, and if I try to walk around with them on I can't see where I'm going!
That was a bad image of mine Fred. The parallax for the transparent balls is different from the stereogram. I'd do it differently today.
Can you create a flash animation of the two rotating patterns in the glasses? That would create an interesting 3D effect.
http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/s...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by gwpriester http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/s...post-right.png
Off in what way? They look fine to me but I may be missing something.
Boy: The perspective
The cube on the left was draw in perspective. The cube on the right is my usual lazy isometric plot.
Which looks more correct to you?
I agree with Boy, The perspective may be correct but it does seem off. Because of that, your "usual lazy isometric plot" kind of looks better.
Maybe this is different for different people the cube on the left looks better to me.
I also think the cube on the left looks better.
The left one
Using Fred C's magical glasses, here is a good example of how spacing can be used stereographically to show depth. As the dots in the eyes get closer together, the combined image dot appears to come forward. As the dots in the eyes get farther apart, the combined image dot appears to go way back.
Creating this was the easy part. The hard part was figuring out how to embed the SWF file in this post to get it to play on screen. :-O
For those who are stereogram challenged, see if you can make the two lenses into three. Relax your eyes. If you can see three circlular lenses then you will see the depth occurring in the center circle.
The left one looks much better but it still needs some tinkering, if you ask me, because it still looks a bit off. The cube seems somewhat squashed and I guess that the more such a geometric shape is tilted the more any issues with perspective show.
Sorry to disturb your lazy Sunday, Gary! :rolleyes: :D
Hmm. :banghead: