omniVERSE wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
It really is not much different to look at the cross-eye image on my
monitor than it is to hold my finger a few inches from my nose and focus
on it.  In fact, if you do the same thing, while in front of a monitor,
you'll notice that the background (the monitor) is duplicated.  If there
happens to be a cross-eye stereo on your monitor at the time you're
focusing on your finger, lo and behold, there's a 3-D image!  (The only
problem is that you have to adjust for distance-focus, not just
cross-eye focus, so this method is not exactly a good trick.)
-- 
 
-- A.J.
http://www.cc.utah.edu/~ajp25960
 
If at first you DO succeed, try not to look astonished

Post a reply to this message