Spock wrote:
> WOW! Very very nice.  The first time I got a strange variation with 
> three (or more) objects, including a skinny one in front and some chubby 
> ones behind.  Then I wiggled my eyes a bit to far and lost it.
> 
> When I got it back I only had one perfectly formed object, and the 3D 
> lock was among the best I've ever experienced.  I had no trouble with 
> the illusion that I could reach into my monitor and pick it up.  Love it!

Thank you very much for your input! I was beginning to think the only 
reason I saw it so well was because I already knew what to look for. My 
brother can't see these things (and thus provide input), unless the 
effect is reversed. It is much easier to cross your eyes that it is to 
relax them, even though crossing your eyes puts more strain on them.

> If you have time and/or inclination I would really like to see a short 
> tutorial (with source) on how this was accomplished so I could do it 
> with object(s) of my own design.

I will make this my priority after Christmas shopping, which I will be 
doing tomorrow.

> Thanks for posting!

No problem :) (no problem this time, there are so many things I haven't 
posted :/ )

> ps:  A long time ago somebody told me that the best way to see one of 
> these (for beginners) was to display it on a shiny surface and focus on 
> your reflection.  Just a trick to double your focal distance I guess. 
> Today I managed to look at something on the wall behind my monitor and 
> that worked.
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I learned with the 'nose to the paper' technique. That was back 
in the mid-09s.

Sa,

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> Arrgh!!
> 
> I can only keep it in focus for a few fractions of a second and my temper is 
> too bad to persist, but I am glad that I was able to at least see it! ;-)
> 
> Good job!

Thanks, and you too for managing to see it!

Sam

Post a reply to this message

jhu wrote:
> 
> Nice! A snowman!>

Thanks!

> I remember making random-dot stereograms back in highschool by
> writing pascal programs. This was back when these things were the biggest fad
> (mid-'90s). I really wasn't able to make more than a combination of geometric
> shapes.
> 

That was my experience a few years ago with Euphoria. I got it to work, 
but I was using simple math routines for the depth data. Nothing very 
exciting.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Spock <Spo### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> WOW! Very very nice.  The first time I got a strange variation with
> three (or more) objects, including a skinny one in front and some chubby
> ones behind.  Then I wiggled my eyes a bit to far and lost it.

hey, I actually saw the skinny figure *behind* the chubby one, the whole thing
seemed 3-layered.  and I swear in some moment I saw 4 hats in the outer figure!

very nice!

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Spock <Spo### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> WOW! Very very nice.  The first time I got a strange variation with
>> three (or more) objects, including a skinny one in front and some chubby
>> ones behind.  Then I wiggled my eyes a bit to far and lost it.
> 
> hey, I actually saw the skinny figure *behind* the chubby one, the whole thing
> seemed 3-layered.  and I swear in some moment I saw 4 hats in the outer figure!
> 
> very nice!

Thanks!

Sam

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> Thank you very much for your input! I was beginning to think the only
> reason I saw it so well was because I already knew what to look for. My
> brother can't see these things (and thus provide input), unless the
> effect is reversed. It is much easier to cross your eyes that it is to
> relax them, even though crossing your eyes puts more strain on them.
>

A lot of people I know can't see these things for some reason. The easiest way
is to focus on something further behind image. I tell people to look at the
wall behind the monitor and let their peripheral vision make out the image and
then slowly move focus back to the monitor. After enough training, they can do
it without looking beyond the monitor first.

Post a reply to this message

jhu wrote:
> 
> A lot of people I know can't see these things for some reason. The easiest way
> is to focus on something further behind image. I tell people to look at the
> wall behind the monitor and let their peripheral vision make out the image and
> then slowly move focus back to the monitor. After enough training, they can do
> it without looking beyond the monitor first.
> 

I will suggestion this technique to my brother. Thanks!

Sam

Post a reply to this message

stbenge wrote:
> This afternoon I discovered a way to make stereograms in POV-Ray. 

   Incredible... I can't understand where you get all these great ideas... 
surely your mind is unique: you seem to easily come up with techniques for 
things that most of us consider impossible or very hard.

   BTW, I can see stereograms from any distance, and even while walking 
around...  :)

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> stbenge wrote:
>> This afternoon I discovered a way to make stereograms in POV-Ray. 
> 
>   Incredible... I can't understand where you get all these great 
> ideas... surely your mind is unique: you seem to easily come up with 
> techniques for things that most of us consider impossible or very hard.

I did a lot of drugs in the sixties (says the guy who was born in the 
late seventies). Seriously though, I really need to actually *finish* a 
scene. Something you seem to be good at... :)

>   BTW, I can see stereograms from any distance, and even while walking 
> around...  :)

That's pretty good. Reminds me of how I'm always trying to see 3d images 
in repeating patterns, on buildings and posters. I'm always checking 
things, to make sure I'm not being hit with subliminal messages...

Thanks for the input~

Sam

Post a reply to this message

"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.476b53e2be20955132ce44a40@news.povray.org...
> stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
> A lot of people I know can't see these things for some reason. The easiest 
> way
> is to focus on something further behind image. I tell people to look at 
> the
> wall behind the monitor and let their peripheral vision make out the image 
> and
> then slowly move focus back to the monitor. After enough training, they 
> can do
> it without looking beyond the monitor first.
>

Simply brillo!

I am one of those people with great depth perception, but I have great 
difficulty merging regular stereo views.
For this however I got it in short order. My technique was quite different 
to some suggested above:

Get up really close to the monitor.
Stare through it.
Slowly move your head away to about 1 foot moving sightly from side to side 
as you go.
Those edges pop into focus as you go.
Once you have a lock on the 3D picture, its easiest to hold if you keep your 
head moving a little.
At this point you can comfortably retreat to your normal viewing position.

Thanks Sam,

DLM

Post a reply to this message