Stereoscopy has at last reached the mainstream of mass media, a technique in
which POV-Ray has been shining for a long time.

Therefore, it should get the attention it deserves on these pages as well. In
particular, I propose to

- discuss the respective techniques and aesthetics here
- publish examples here (code an pics)
- rerender the Hall of Fame in stereo, if possible
- rerender the 3D-models of classical paintings in stereo, if possible.

Only a stereo rendering proves a genuine modeling and really adds to the
sensation.

As for the format, please do not publish anaglyphs, but either side-by-side
positioning (.jps) or two jpegs. A high resolution is vital, so anyone can view
the pics in detail, e.g. using Stereopteryx or special hardware. Those who
prefer anaglyphs or cross-eyed viewing, can easily transform the material by
free software.

Thanks to all the artists and authors! Thanks in advance for considering "real"
3D!

Please, all readers, vote by answering to this thread!

Post a reply to this message

On 11/07/2010 6:02 PM, AS wrote:
> Stereoscopy has at last reached the mainstream of mass media, a technique in
> which POV-Ray has been shining for a long time.

What do you mean? "Shining"

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On 11/07/2010 6:02 PM, AS wrote:
> > Stereoscopy has at last reached the mainstream of mass media, a technique in
> > which POV-Ray has been shining for a long time.
>
> What do you mean? "Shining"

surely he's a great fan of your anaglyphs! :)  Really, I don't know anyone else
who's been povving in stereo... :)

There are pros and cons to both methods, and I'll go just with the cons (reminds
me of Lisp):

* anaglyph loses color info
* anaglyph requires glasses not readily available (and my cheap hand-made
cellophane one doesn't really offer such a marvelous experience)
* very few people are able to visualize cross-view or parallel-view stereograms
without getting pain or angry at not getting it

in short:  very few people are able to watch 3D content either because they lack
glasses or patience or skill or whatever.

I don't think 3D TVs with glasses will ever become popular.  It'll take a while
for devices with builtin parallax barriers in the display itself to become
popular and affordable, beginning with Nintendo's 3DS I guess... that's when 3D
will get popular and holograms will be the next big thing... :)

that said, it would make life so much easier if there was a builtin parameter in
the camera, something like:

camera { perspective location -5*z look_at 0 stereoscopic .6 }

which would make 2 renders:  1 from <-.3,0,-5> and another from <.3,0,-5> :)

automatically joining the two renders into one according to some visualization
scheme would be nice, but it seems youtube and others expect 2 separate frames
to be joined at will by the user agent, not preset...

yes, I know, it could be done with a macro.  Heck, even NURBS or a raytracer can
get done with a macro, but that doesn't mean they should...

Post a reply to this message

On 12/07/2010 5:23 AM, nemesis wrote:
> surely he's a great fan of your anaglyphs!:)   Really, I don't know anyone else
> who's been povving in stereo...:)
>

Oops! Wrong Stephen, you need StephenS ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 5:23 AM, nemesis wrote:
> > surely he's a great fan of your anaglyphs!:)   Really, I don't know anyone else
> > who's been povving in stereo...:)
> >
>
> Oops! Wrong Stephen, you need StephenS ;-)

ah, yes.  Mr. Stephen Stereo, how could I forget that... ;)

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
....
> > What do you mean? "Shining"
....
> Really, I don't know anyone else
> who's been povving in stereo... :)
>

Well, I know a few, who can easily be googled. In fact I am one myself, but I
don't publish povs. Also, I rerender other people's code in stereo to my own
perfect pleasure. For viewing, my friends and I use Stereopteryx (free software,
no glasses) and none of us finds it difficult or painful. To be sure, this is
not the last word of history.

As for "camera" syntax, such an improvement is certainly desirable and has been
desired frequently, which by the way proves that there is some interest.
However, shifting two vectors isn't any more of a challenge than all the other
stuff, is it?

The above contributions can all be regarded as votes pro.

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> surely he's a great fan of your anaglyphs! :)  Really, I don't know anyone  else
> who's been povving in stereo... :)

Thank you. The choose of stereo in general and anaglyph in particular was
because of so little competition.

....
> * anaglyph loses color info
Yes, that's why some of me pictures are gray scale instead.

> * anaglyph requires glasses not readily available (and my cheap hand-made
> cellophane one doesn't really offer such a marvelous experience)
> * very few people are able to visualize cross-view or parallel-view stereograms
> without getting pain or angry at not getting it
I have this problem, the %1 of the time I get it, is to much work for the
result.

> in short:  very few people are able to watch 3D content either because they lack
> glasses or patience or skill or whatever.
>
> I don't think 3D TVs with glasses will ever become popular.
....
I would like to get this one day. The 3d shutter glasses I think give the best
3d results.

Stephen S

Post a reply to this message

Pleas don't let us discuss about TV here, it's being done sufficiently in other
places.

For small pics such as StephenS's, anaglyphs are ok, and so are cross-views. But
I am after those spectacular, highly detailed images that are often published
without sources (which, apart from being the artist's secrets, are usually
unreadable). Examples are the Hall-of-Fame pics, imitations of classical
paintings, and mathematical stuff such as fractals. I challenge those authors
who kindly offer mono pics for download to add renderings for the second
eye. Their reward will be, apart from the usual applause, that they disprove any
suspicions of cheating. (Those Escher paradoxa won't work in stereo unless done
very trickily!)

The example code "balcony.pov" shipped with the prog has the following lines:

camera {
  location    <0.5, 0.5, 1.2>
  direction   y
  sky         z
  up          z
  right       (3/4)*x
  look_at     <5, 4.3, 0.9>
  angle       36
}

This I used for the right eye and did another rendering for the left eye,
replacing those lines with

camera {
  location    <0.462, 0.545, 1.2>
  direction   y
  sky         z
  up          z
  right       (3/4)*x
  look_at     <4.962, 4.345, 0.9>
  angle       36
}

At high resolution such as 1600 x 1200 - viewed as mentioned before - the effect
is quite impressive and well worth the rendering time. Does anyone disagree?

Post a reply to this message

"AS" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4c3f56b3cc8a6bf61f72a5ba0@news.povray.org...
> [.....] At high resolution such as 1600 x 1200 - viewed as mentioned 
> before - the effect
> is quite impressive and well worth the rendering time. Does anyone 
> disagree?

That reminds me of the round cards I had as a kid, and the 3D viewer to use 
them. I loved that. My question is how you view those large sized images? 
You need to scale them down in order to get them both on screen, no doubt? 
and a viewer?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> "AS" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
> news:web.4c3f56b3cc8a6bf61f72a5ba0@news.povray.org...
> My question is how you view those large sized images?
> You need to scale them down in order to get them both on screen, no doubt?
> and a viewer?

As I wrote before, I use the free software Stereopteryx
(http://www.midicond.de/Freeware/index_en.html#Stereopteryx), which can scale
down the images to give you an overall view, and quickly zoom into any detail
such as that marvelous chalk rock island to the left of "balcony". No glasses,
no viewer, no crossing of eyes or fingers.

There has been quite a lot of discussion in photography forums about taking and
viewing stereo photos. Also, stunning examples in high resolutions abound, e.g.
at the portal "Flickr" (http://www.flickr.com/groups/stereo/). Raytracers seem
to be somewhat behind, as far as I noticed, whence my initiative here.

Actually some people are known to use Stereopteryx (or StereoPhotoMaker)
together with their viewing hardware, such as a conventional prism or mirror
stereoscope or even two polarizing beamers, used with suitable glasses! I own
neither and do not feel I'm missing out at the moment. But, to repeat myself
once more, history is not at its end yet.

Post a reply to this message