3-D Flower illusion

[Bill]

Stare at the pic and cross your eyes until you see one in the middle then stare at the middle one. The f;lower will appear to be in 3-D.

[middleway]

yikes! cool!

[Teazer]

nice

[Dmitri]

I've been playing with this since childhood... I would draw two simple pictures side by side (e.g. hollow cubes) and play with various perspective ratios, placing dots at the back, front, "outside" the cube, etc. Later experimented a little with taking "paired" pictures of an object from about a foot apart (left-right.)
They didn't look as clean as this lily of course but the 3D-ness of them was quite obvious.

I really wish this technology would become mainstream, and would also be applied to video, replacing the stupid "3-d glasses" idea.
With proper distance from the source and appropriate size of the image/video, this approach is 100% natural (unlike polarized glasses) and would NOT tire the eyes. With a little bit of training/conditioning anyone could enjoy TRUE and natural 3-D instead of the polarized surrogate currently on the market.

Oh well, I'll just keep dreaming.

Thanks for posting it Bill; it's beautiful.

[qiphlow]

that's cool--can anyone else relax their eyes once the 3d effect has been achieved and not lose the 3d image?

[D_Glenn]

Dmitri, I think they do have it. Our eyes are roughly 15degrees apart so they set 2 IMAX cameras 15 degrees apart and film the same scene, then you wear glasses that have l.e.d black outs on each eye which are synced up with a inaudible radio signal in the film that tells which eye to black out as the 2 spliced films are ran through the projector alternating 30 times a second or so. I don't know if that technology proved cost-effective though.

It's just like the old stereoscopic glasses from the 1800's.

[Dmitri]

Wow... didn't know that. That's cool, although the method itself it's a little bit different (and a lot more "artificial" and involved). This one's a LOT cheaper; all you need is two conjoined/synchronized cameras (or one if split optically properly.)

Here's one example:
http://www.ledametrix.com/

He's got a lot of samples...



If you get far away from the screen, you can REALLY let your eyes relax and view without any strain whatsoever... It's like a window into some parallel universe or something.

There's absolutely NO COMPARISON in quality between this method and anything else out there, IMO.


qiphlow, yeah of course, you can scan around the image easily, all in full focus.
I dunno maybe it's not everybody, but it seems a LOT easier to achieve than the reverse of that, the much-wider-spread autostereogram.

[qiphlow]

d,
i learned the trick of relaxing the eyes from looking at those autostereograms. and i do find it easier with the types of imges on the thread here.
trippy stuff!

[Dmitri]

That's good to know! I've always had a hard time with those other things... And image quality is also worse there, right? Here you can get whatever resolution you can get on a photo -- just get two of them, and - voila, but that other technology I think might be a bit restrictive in that area... (just a speculation though, I don't really know for sure.)

[Teazer]

I had one of these 3d viewers that worked pretty much the same & didn't get eyestrain. For the size of photo it was great quality.
http://www.3dstereo.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=COM-SHELLY

If the cost of 3d computer visors comes down, it'd be great if movies ended up being filmed stereoscopically again. The blue/red goggles were crap, but if the images are presented directly to each eye, it should be excellent.

[qiphlow]

disney's got some really good 3d going on with their films. you still have to use glasses, though.