No so clear stereogram

[gwpriester]

A discussion came up in a Yahoo Groups stereogram group about why printed stereograms look so incredibly sharp in print.

My stereogram partner Gene Levine pointed out that this is because we create our images with everything in focus which is not what happens in real life.

The concept seemed worth playing around with and this is what I came up with.

[angelize]

That's cool, I wonder if it would work if you applied blurring to parts of the depth image?

[pauland]

I'm not a fan of the blurred version. Thumbs down from me. Sorry.

[gray]

Interesting effect, looks like it's coming out of the fog.

[Big Frank]

depth of field, cool, works for me

[wizard509]

Works for me too. That is what my vision is like now anyway or soon would be if I didn't use my eyedrops religiously.

[pauland]

Gary, in case you're wondering, and since you're getting an overwhelmingly positive response, I can see the blurred stereogram very well, my thumbs down is just a vote comparing it against the sharp version. I much prefer the sharper image. The version with depth of field isn't as much fun to me.

[Rik]

The centre part is as good as any other stereogram you've done.
So, I'm not sure what the purpose is for making the rest of it foggy?

I can't say I like it.
Maybe I'm missing something and I can't see the reason for making the rest of it foggy?

[Boy]

It might be interesting to apply this technique to an autumn landscape scene. The 'fog' creates a sense of intimacy and mystery.

The stereogram also gave me the impression that the inside of the cube is lit up more than the rest. This effect could also be interesting to pursue.

I think you are on to something here.

[gwpriester]

Paul - It is really an experiment. I might try one where the entire image is blurred which could have a fog or ghostly effect but not be so hard on the eyes. Several members of the stereogram group found the changing focus disturbing and hard on the eyes.