 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yep, sorry, I thought so too. I hurriedly used a clumsy left/right shift
as second thought to just plain old single image. The camera is rotated
off axis some and instead of shifting the rotation I translated in 2
axes (x,z) by what probably is too large a shift anyhow since I guessed
it.
I did try keeping the images narrowed in width. Basically the eye
separation just can't be compromised or you get cock-eyed too much.
Suppose cross-eyed would be easier but I've never done those since it
seems to go against logic looking at opposite sides.
I'll probably go ahead and reduce this one and add it onto my web page.
Simon de Vet wrote:
>
> However, I suggest making the image smaller, or having the two halves closer
> together. This requires sooooo much eye crossing, it gives me a headache. Even
> a reduction to 70-80% of the size would make a world of difference....
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aol com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What you have now is a diverge-your-eyes picture (the usual magic-eye uses
diverge)... with big pictures I find it easer to cross my eyes instead.
I can't diverge my eyes far enough for this picture, but if I reverse the
frames (in a paint program) and then cross my eyes, it looks great!
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alas, I know... It's just that I keep thinking I might print these and
use a stereoscope viewer on them someday 8)
I've said it before and I'll say it again, trick is to get far away from
the monitor screen to ease the eyes.
I've added this particular one to my 3D web page shrunk down a bit,
again the URL is:
http://members.aol.com/wrld0rigin/3D.htm
I need to put more up. And try cross-eyed versions too I guess, you can
get closer to them.
Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
> What you have now is a diverge-your-eyes picture (the usual magic-eye uses
> diverge)... with big pictures I find it easer to cross my eyes instead.
> I can't diverge my eyes far enough for this picture, but if I reverse the
> frames (in a paint program) and then cross my eyes, it looks great!
>
> -Nathan
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The fact is that I was just thinking about this idea in the pas week and
was about to post it here. I thought of maybe holding two papertowel
cones in front on ones eyes, so that each eye gets one image. However, i
figured a better way to do it after not succeeding with your technique:
Instead of holding one hand in front of your eyes, hold two, it will be
MUCH easier, even for big images:
\/ <--- two hands, twisted in opposite directions
-00- <-- eyes
/head\
\ /
----
Anyway, you images are cool!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, and I forgot to mension my other idea: 3D ANIMATIONS!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Have you tried it with SISs? (aka Autostereograms?) VERY COOL!!! :-)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Heh-heh, yeah, paper towel tubes. I used to do it that way, that's why I
came up with the twisted flat vertical hand idea to make it utensil-free
viewing. The one hand thing does work rather well I believe, all thats
necessary is for the eyes to be helped to see only one image each.
A lot also depends though on the individuals ability to go cockeyed with
this type of stereo pair. I often do it without any aide whatsoever, so
long as the images are either small or seen from far away.
Noam Lewis wrote:
>
> The fact is that I was just thinking about this idea in the pas week and
> was about to post it here. I thought of maybe holding two papertowel
> cones in front on ones eyes, so that each eye gets one image. However, i
> figured a better way to do it after not succeeding with your technique:
> Instead of holding one hand in front of your eyes, hold two, it will be
> MUCH easier, even for big images:
>
> \/ <--- two hands, twisted in opposite directions
> -00- <-- eyes
> /head\
> \ /
> ----
>
> Anyway, you images are cool!
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yep, done them. And for some reason they aren't near as easy for me to
keep focused on. All the movement going on, you know. Another very real
problem is the "static" caused by the pixels rendered for the two
separate viewpoints, it's very much like the 'jitter' or 'crand' keyword
being used in a regular animation. I don't see any solution to this
aside from using pigments only without any complex texturing anyway.
Noam Lewis wrote:
>
> Oh, and I forgot to mension my other idea: 3D ANIMATIONS!
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, the animated SIS/SIRDS can be neat, though the only ones I've seen
so far weren't much for some reason. Just bouncing balls and such. Too
bad you can't get a poster of one though :(
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> Have you tried it with SISs? (aka Autostereograms?) VERY COOL!!! :-)
>
> --
> Lance.
>
> ---
> For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
> The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The fact is, I did do this, and I was able to "see" them just as easily.
However, it wasn't as cool as stills for some reason. Maybe i'll think
of a different animation, watch out...
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> Yep, done them. And for some reason they aren't near as easy for me to
> keep focused on. All the movement going on, you know. Another very real
> problem is the "static" caused by the pixels rendered for the two
> separate viewpoints, it's very much like the 'jitter' or 'crand' keyword
> being used in a regular animation. I don't see any solution to this
> aside from using pigments only without any complex texturing anyway.
>
> Noam Lewis wrote:
> >
> > Oh, and I forgot to mension my other idea: 3D ANIMATIONS!
>
> --
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
> mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
