This is my first stereogram. If it looks weird, blame it on the fact that I
have absolutely no idea on how to make these things. :) Mr. Vandiver's post
about his computer buddies got me inspired to render my computer companion,
a little thingy I have glued to the top of my monitor. I was up 'til 4:AM (I
started at 12:M) and finished texturing it this afternoon. Enjoy.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'stereojesus.jpg' (46 KB)

Preview of image 'stereojesus.jpg'

Tony,
Nice image, but I'm not getting much depth. Is it cross-eye or
parallel?
TonyB <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote in message
news:387f9c16@news.povray.org...
> This is my first stereogram. If it looks weird, blame it on the fact that
I
> have absolutely no idea on how to make these things. :) Mr. Vandiver's
post
> about his computer buddies got me inspired to render my computer
companion,
> a little thingy I have glued to the top of my monitor. I was up 'til 4:AM
(I
> started at 12:M) and finished texturing it this afternoon. Enjoy.
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I think it is cross-eyed, but I can never tell. I just mess around till it
looks right.

--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___     ______________________________
 | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
 |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>

Post a reply to this message

This one is nice and easy to view. Pops out right away!

--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___     ______________________________
 | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
 |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>

Post a reply to this message

>Nice image, but I'm not getting much depth. Is it cross-eye or
>parallel?

You've got me, buddy. I have the camera at <1,2,-3>*33 looking at <0,0,0>,
and then I translate it to <3,0,-3>/10 for the left and <-3,0,3>/10 for the
right. I crossed my eyes and it worked, so I assumed it was OK. Please help
me improve it.

Post a reply to this message

I guess I keep my camera in a simple geometry to make it easier to
make stereo pairs. In a scene like this I would rotate the object
rather than the camera. When the camera is rotated the world geometry
gets just too damn complex for me! I think your camera is placed at
<33,66,-99> then for the left <33.33,66,-99.33> right <32.667,66,-98.667>
which means the separation on the x axis is 0.667, and the 0.667 on the
z axis is very minor. Since your camera is rotated to look at <0,0,0>
there is even less change. Far less than the 1:30 rule would recommend.
Just for fun try this: rotate Jesus y*-20, then render with the camera at
left <-1.5,66,-99>, right <1.5,66,-99>. To keep the cameras parallel change
the look at to <-1.5,0,0> left and <1.5,0,0> right. That will give you a
1:30 camera separation to object distance ratio. When that is done combine
the images with the left eye image on the right and vice versa for cross-eye
viewing, if that is the viewing method that works for you.

Hope this is worth your time. If the image works for you as is then, heck
it works! But try this as an experiment :-)

Harold


TonyB <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote in message
news:387faf51@news.povray.org...
> >Nice image, but I'm not getting much depth. Is it cross-eye or
> >parallel?
>
> You've got me, buddy. I have the camera at <1,2,-3>*33 looking at <0,0,0>,
> and then I translate it to <3,0,-3>/10 for the left and <-3,0,3>/10 for
the
> right. I crossed my eyes and it worked, so I assumed it was OK. Please
help
> me improve it.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

>Hope this is worth your time. If the image works for you as is then, heck
>it works! But try this as an experiment :-)


Looks good too. I can't really tell the difference though. I had to increase
the Z because the cross wouldn't all fit in -99. Here it is for your viewing
pleasure, Harold: your own personal Jesus. :)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'haroldjesus.jpg' (27 KB)

Preview of image 'haroldjesus.jpg'

Tony,
Thank you for my own Jesus! The image you posted is in parallel
format, but when I downloaded it and rearranged it for cross-eye
viewing it was good. Much more depth in this one. Thanks for the
effort.

Harold

TonyB <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote in message
news:387fd349@news.povray.org...
> >Hope this is worth your time. If the image works for you as is then, heck
> >it works! But try this as an experiment :-)
>
>
> Looks good too. I can't really tell the difference though. I had to
increase
> the Z because the cross wouldn't all fit in -99. Here it is for your
viewing
> pleasure, Harold: your own personal Jesus. :)
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Much better!

--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___     ______________________________
 | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
 |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>

Post a reply to this message

This explaination was in regard to red/cyan 3D pair but it seems to
work for cross-eyed stuff too.
From my post back on 5/14/99 (I was making sure I had Grimdude's
explaination right).
//---------------------------------------------------------
I think I did it right, it seemed to work. But in case I 
just got lucky;
let me make sure I have your directions straight. So it's:

1. Find the distance between the camera location and look_at.
   ie. if the look_at is <0,0,0> and my camera location is
   <0,.5,-4> then the result I want is along z which = 4 .

2. Divide the result of step 1. by 11.8(12.0 respectively).
   I get 0.33893 

3. Divide step 2. by 2(the number 2, Not step2).
   which = 0.1694915 

4. The result of step 3. is added to the x value in the camera
   location for the right.tga. And subtracted for the left.tga.
   left.tga = camera{ location<-0.1694915,.5,-4>
   right.tga= camera{ location<0.1694915,.5,-4>


-- 
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.

Post a reply to this message