Hi everyone,

I just uploaded the file to p.b.scene-files. It's a zip file containing 
two scene files in a single folder, so it can be unzipped into your 
scene directory. One file produces the depth map, and the other makes 
the stereogram. All the features are written as comments within the main 
file. The default values produced the attached image.

Enjoy!

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'stereogram0_47.jpg' (133 KB)

Preview of image 'stereogram0_47.jpg'

I like the colors to this one

Post a reply to this message

Among other things, stbenge saw fit to write:

> I just uploaded the file to p.b.scene-files. It's a zip file containing
> two scene files in a single folder, so it can be unzipped into your
> scene directory. One file produces the depth map, and the other makes
> the stereogram. All the features are written as comments within the main
> file. The default values produced the attached image.

Thanks! Now it's time to try to understand it ;)

By the way, is it just me or is there a glitch in the middle of the image
(where the two boxes meet)? I see it especially in the lower triangle, the
stem of the P, and it's worse with increased effect_depth.

Another note, I see these things more easily with a lower number of
"strips" (a wider repeating pattern), otherwise my eyes tend to lock at a
too wide separation and I see double objecs or strange shapes. Changing
number_of_strips to 3 was nicer.

-- 
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby

Post a reply to this message

Jellby wrote:
> Among other things, stbenge saw fit to write:
> 
>> I just uploaded the file to p.b.scene-files. It's a zip file containing
>> two scene files in a single folder, so it can be unzipped into your
>> scene directory. One file produces the depth map, and the other makes
>> the stereogram. All the features are written as comments within the main
>> file. The default values produced the attached image.
> 
> Thanks! Now it's time to try to understand it ;)

It's really not a very difficult concept. Each strip after the one 
previous to it is displaced in an additive fashion.

> By the way, is it just me or is there a glitch in the middle of the image
> (where the two boxes meet)? I see it especially in the lower triangle, the
> stem of the P, and it's worse with increased effect_depth.

Uh oh, I didn't fully test the code after making a rather extreme 
optimization! I will soon release another version.

> Another note, I see these things more easily with a lower number of
> "strips" (a wider repeating pattern), otherwise my eyes tend to lock at a
> too wide separation and I see double objecs or strange shapes. Changing
> number_of_strips to 3 was nicer.

Whatever works for you, I suppose. I did warn against very high strip 
counts, as they will tend to produce double images and other such errors.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Lace wrote:
> I like the colors to this one
> 
I thought they were rather dark, where as the previous scene seemed more 
luminous.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

stbenge wrote:
> Jellby wrote:
>> By the way, is it just me or is there a glitch in the middle of the image
>> (where the two boxes meet)? I see it especially in the lower triangle, 
>> the
>> stem of the P, and it's worse with increased effect_depth.
> 
> Uh oh, I didn't fully test the code after making a rather extreme 
> optimization! I will soon release another version.

A fixed version has been uploaded to p.b.scene-files. It doesn't start 
the effect from the center of the image. If someone wants to take the 
time to add that feature, be my guest :)

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Seems some people still have trouble seeing these things. Sam, you might want to
consider putting two "focusing dots" above the picture. I remember those things
being fairly helpful when I started looking at these things.

Post a reply to this message

"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Seems some people still have trouble seeing these things. Sam, you might want to
> consider putting two "focusing dots" above the picture. I remember those things
> being fairly helpful when I started looking at these things.

The image is full of focusing dots.

Stylistically, I was trying to figure out what the pov symbol is sitting on. It
might be a crackle heightfield-- is that supposed to be rocks?

Post a reply to this message

> "jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Seems some people still have trouble seeing these things. Sam, you might want to
>> consider putting two "focusing dots" above the picture. I remember those things
>> being fairly helpful when I started looking at these things.
> 
> The image is full of focusing dots.
> 

I had trouble finding the right eye orientation on each of Samuel's 
stereograms, because it seems that several are possible and make edges 
appear (I think someone else also mentionned seeing three "intersecting" 
snowmen on the first image). Only one gives the right image, though... 
So yes, it's a problem that focusing dots can help with.

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

Vincent Le Chevalier nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/24 10:19:
> gregjohn a écrit :
>> "jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>>> Seems some people still have trouble seeing these things. Sam, you 
>>> might want to
>>> consider putting two "focusing dots" above the picture. I remember 
>>> those things
>>> being fairly helpful when I started looking at these things.
>>
>> The image is full of focusing dots.
>>
> 
> I had trouble finding the right eye orientation on each of Samuel's 
> stereograms, because it seems that several are possible and make edges 
> appear (I think someone else also mentionned seeing three "intersecting" 
> snowmen on the first image). Only one gives the right image, though... 
> So yes, it's a problem that focusing dots can help with.
> 
The focusing dots are helpfull when you have many "dots" in the image. It help 
geting the right focusing and not take the second or third instance when the 
pattern is narrow.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
   I went to a massage parlor. It was self service.
   	Rodney Dangerfield

Post a reply to this message