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).

This image won a Gold Medal from the Photographic Society of
America.

Harold

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'starcjps.jpg' (37 KB)

Preview of image 'starcjps.jpg'

A bit wide for stereo.

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

Post a reply to this message

Hey! This one really pops out! Cool!

Post a reply to this message

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

"Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote in message
news:387fd65c@news.povray.org...
> 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).
>
> This image won a Gold Medal from the Photographic Society of
> America.
>
> Harold
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

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

On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 02:31:34 -0600, "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom>
wrote:

>I just can't
>focus while doing so even though I can get my eyes crossed that much.  The

I had the same problem until someone pointed that if you could hold
your eyes in place for several seconds (5-10 for me) it gets on focus
by itself.


Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

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

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

Funny I'm the exact opposite. I can see the cross-eyed ones just fine, and
I've never been able to get the parallel ones to work. I just can't get my
eyes do do it, while I can cross 'em real easily ...

--
Paul Vanukoff
van### [at] primenetcom

"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
>
> "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

Peter Popov wrote in message <+zOAOArhbyJgXf7eZ9dKKrQoHr49@4ax.com>...
>I had the same problem until someone pointed that if you could hold
>your eyes in place for several seconds (5-10 for me) it gets on focus
>by itself.
>

Your lucky, those of us who can only see out of one eye can only guess what
these images look like :-( me bitter? never! I'm just waiting for
holographic VDUs :-)

jus### [at] rayjayclaracouk

Post a reply to this message