Hey thanks, that would be of great help for all I think.  I might try that
suggestion myself about using 3 images for doing it both ways.
Still, I'm perplexed at the concept of crossing the eyes because it is so much
farther to move them, like you say for bigger pictures.  That's what I just
don't get.  You'd have to angle your eyes so far that way (crossing and holding
in place is key I gather).  I'm not saying that parallel is any good for large
stereopairs though, no, I agree.

Bob

"3Dude" <bai### [at] jpsnet> wrote in message news:3880358a@news.povray.org...
> Yes, cross-eye is easy for some, not even possible for many. The
> advantage, for those that can cross the eyes, is that the images
> can be any size, whereas, except for a few very rare individuals,
> people can't view parallel pairs if the images are wider than 2.5
> inches, as displayed on their monitors.
>
> Next time I'll post in both cross and parallel. :-)
>
> Harold
>
> omniVERSE <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
> news:38803075@news.povray.org...
> > The more cross-eyed stereo pairs I see the more confused I am as to why it
> would
> > be better or easier to see.  Doesn't anyone realize how much you have to
> angle
> > each eye direction to see the center of a left or right picture?  I just
> can't
> > focus while doing so even though I can get my eyes crossed that much.  The
> > diverged-eye way at least starts you off with the images on the same side
> of
> > your face  X-]
> > Sorry to carry on so about it, but since there's no way to see them as is
> I have
> > to shift them around in PSP (so I wanted to whine about it).  Anyway, it
> is
> > definately a great 3D effect and good subject matter as well.  That reach
> for
> > the world isn't nearly as good in 2D.
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message