That is a good idea, on the other hand, even if the viewer
had a head the size of Jupiter, these objects would appear
flat at such astronomical distances. You are right though
it would have made for a better image, and obviously
it isn't to scale :-)

Harold

Mike Williams <mik### [at] nospamplease> wrote in message
news:805YSPARD$f4Ew1T@econym.demon.co.uk...
> Wasn't it Harold Baize who wrote:
> >Well I have been nit-picking the stereo postings of others so
> >I should put my stuff out there for peer review :-). The space
> >scene was rendered with POV using Chris Colefax's Galaxy include
> >file. Spent much time trying to get a good cloud texture on the
> >Earth. The child was not rendered :-), she was photographed using
> >a 1950's stereo camera (TDC Vivid).
>
> Had you considered splitting the Colefax galaxy stuff into separate
> layers? I.e. rendering the galaxy_bg, galaxy_starfield and
> galaxy_objects parts of the image at different galaxy_distance so that
> it doesn't come out as a single flat background.
>
> --
> Mike Williams + #
> Gentleman of Leisure

Post a reply to this message

Bob,
The down side of using the three image side-by-side presentation is that
you have to limit the size of the images, so you lose the slight advantage
of cross-eye. On my 17inch monitor, at 1024x768, the left and right
parts of the StarChild image are each 4.75 inches (10.23cm). To present
them parallel I'd need to reduce them to only 53% this size.
So it eats up bandwidth, I'll post a smaller parallel, and larger cross-eyed
next time.

Harold

omniVERSE <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:388038ba@news.povray.org...
> 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
>

Post a reply to this message

Alright.  Not that you have to, you know.  I find myself speaking up here
whereas I wouldn't in a room of people.  Wouldn't do any good then anyhow.  So
don't always listen to me if you don't want too.

Bob

"3Dude" <bai### [at] jpsnet> wrote in message news:3880c8b0@news.povray.org...
> Bob,
> The down side of using the three image side-by-side presentation is that
> you have to limit the size of the images, so you lose the slight advantage
> of cross-eye. On my 17inch monitor, at 1024x768, the left and right
> parts of the StarChild image are each 4.75 inches (10.23cm). To present
> them parallel I'd need to reduce them to only 53% this size.
> So it eats up bandwidth, I'll post a smaller parallel, and larger cross-eyed
> next time.
>

Post a reply to this message

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

"A.J. Palmer" <dae### [at] wolsicom> wrote in message
news:388232D4.3F7FDA8C@wolsi.com...
> 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.)

This is exactly what I had tried to get those kind to work.  It didn't help at
all except to make me cross-eyed and the merged image in the background only
taunted me behind my finger.  Never could focus!  I know it's something to do
with focus and crossing for sure since it's not that way at all merging images
by looking past them, easily focusable then.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

i don't understand how these are supposed to work. or rather, how I am
supposed to look at them.

Post a reply to this message

"Ross Litscher" <lit### [at] osuedu> wrote in message
news:38837bdd@news.povray.org...
> i don't understand how these are supposed to work. or rather, how I am
> supposed to look at them.
>

Crossing your eyes and letting each eye center on the opposite image, your left
eye looks at the right image and right eye looks at the left image.
I prefer the divergence method instead: http://members.aol.com/wrld0rigin/3D.htm
and try to explain how to do that there and you could even look through a paper
rolled up from both ends into a sort of binocular.  Try that with crossed eyes!
:-) Can't be done.
And to see this particular image and others like it in this way instead you need
to rearrange the pair to the opposite sides first.
Hey, I'm not back to complain, just pointing out the facts...

 8-D

Bob

Post a reply to this message

I'm not complaining either. I'm glad you like parallel viewing and
I'll post both types from now on. You prefer parallel viewing, it works
better for you. Good.

Trust me on this though, no one calls it "divergence" viewing, the
common term is "parallel" or just "free viewing" because there are no
optical devices involved. Like I said, very few humans can diverge their
eyes. That is why the old stereoscopes from the 1800's used prismatic
lenses,
that both magnified and bent the images so the eyes could be parallel and
still fuse the images, which were three inches wide, slightly wider than
the 2.5 inch eye separation of most people.

Harold

omniVERSE <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:388407f4@news.povray.org...
> "Ross Litscher" <lit### [at] osuedu> wrote in message
> news:38837bdd@news.povray.org...
> > i don't understand how these are supposed to work. or rather, how I am
> > supposed to look at them.
> >
>
> Crossing your eyes and letting each eye center on the opposite image, your
left
> eye looks at the right image and right eye looks at the left image.
> I prefer the divergence method instead:
http://members.aol.com/wrld0rigin/3D.htm
> and try to explain how to do that there and you could even look through a
paper
> rolled up from both ends into a sort of binocular.  Try that with crossed
eyes!
> :-) Can't be done.
> And to see this particular image and others like it in this way instead
you need
> to rearrange the pair to the opposite sides first.
> Hey, I'm not back to complain, just pointing out the facts...
>
>  8-D
>
> Bob
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message