 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello everyone,
This afternoon I discovered a way to make stereograms in POV-Ray. A
gray-scale depth image is used for input, and any gray-scale pigment can
be used for the repetitive pattern. Colors are added at the
implementation, near the bottom of the file.
I find it best to view the image at a distance of about three feet from
the monitor.
This image took 2 minutes, 14 seconds to render. Some take longer, some
take less time. The render time for the gray-scale depth image was a
negligible one.
Questions and comments, always welcome~
Sam
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'stereogram2_14.jpg' (148 KB)
Preview of image 'stereogram2_14.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very well done. I was able to glance around the whole box the snowman is
in.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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!
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.
Thanks for posting!
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.
stbenge wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> This afternoon I discovered a way to make stereograms in POV-Ray. A
> gray-scale depth image is used for input, and any gray-scale pigment can
> be used for the repetitive pattern. Colors are added at the
> implementation, near the bottom of the file.
>
> I find it best to view the image at a distance of about three feet from
> the monitor.
>
> This image took 2 minutes, 14 seconds to render. Some take longer, some
> take less time. The render time for the gray-scale depth image was a
> negligible one.
>
> Questions and comments, always welcome~
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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!
ian
"stbenge" <stb### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:476b333c@news.povray.org...
> Hello everyone,
>
> This afternoon I discovered a way to make stereograms in POV-Ray. A
> gray-scale depth image is used for input, and any gray-scale pigment can
> be used for the repetitive pattern. Colors are added at the
> implementation, near the bottom of the file.
>
> I find it best to view the image at a distance of about three feet from
> the monitor.
>
> This image took 2 minutes, 14 seconds to render. Some take longer, some
> take less time. The render time for the gray-scale depth image was a
> negligible one.
>
> Questions and comments, always welcome~
>
> Sam
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm...apparently I was too far....8" seems optimal for me!
;-)
fwiw,
ian
"[GDS|Entropy]" <gds### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:476b41ed$1@news.povray.org...
> 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!
>
> ian
>
> "stbenge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:476b333c@news.povray.org...
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> This afternoon I discovered a way to make stereograms in POV-Ray. A
>> gray-scale depth image is used for input, and any gray-scale pigment can
>> be used for the repetitive pattern. Colors are added at the
>> implementation, near the bottom of the file.
>>
>> I find it best to view the image at a distance of about three feet from
>> the monitor.
>>
>> This image took 2 minutes, 14 seconds to render. Some take longer, some
>> take less time. The render time for the gray-scale depth image was a
>> negligible one.
>>
>> Questions and comments, always welcome~
>>
>> Sam
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> This afternoon I discovered a way to make stereograms in POV-Ray. A
> gray-scale depth image is used for input, and any gray-scale pigment can
> be used for the repetitive pattern. Colors are added at the
> implementation, near the bottom of the file.
>
> I find it best to view the image at a distance of about three feet from
> the monitor.
>
> This image took 2 minutes, 14 seconds to render. Some take longer, some
> take less time. The render time for the gray-scale depth image was a
> negligible one.
>
> Questions and comments, always welcome~
>
> Sam
Nice! A snowman! 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> Very well done. I was able to glance around the whole box the snowman is
> in.
Thanks. It helps matters somewhat when the edges are antialiased.
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
dlm napsal(a):
> "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
>
>
I thought my depth perception was bad because of watching stereograms
too much.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
dlm wrote:
> 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.
that's more or less what works best for me too, except
I stay very close until the eyes adjust a bit and don't
move sideways as it distracts me too much.
First attempt it took me 3 minutes to get it into focus,
which was exactly time for the screen-saver to kick in.
That starfield simulation sure looked odd then ;)
Great Job!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
dlm wrote:
> 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.
Oh wow! This is the first time in my LIFE I've EVER been able to see one
of these things. For many years I was actually convinced the whole thing
was an 'Emporer's new clothes' scam. But using this technique, I've
FINALLY seen an image inside the mess!
Thankyou!
Cheers!
Rick Measham
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
dlm wrote:
> Simply brillo!
Thanks!
> 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.
>
> Thanks Sam,
No problem :) The code for it should be ready soon.
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> First attempt it took me 3 minutes to get it into focus,
> which was exactly time for the screen-saver to kick in.
> That starfield simulation sure looked odd then ;)
>
> Great Job!
Thank you!
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick Measham wrote:
>
> Oh wow! This is the first time in my LIFE I've EVER been able to see one
> of these things. For many years I was actually convinced the whole thing
> was an 'Emporer's new clothes' scam. But using this technique, I've
> FINALLY seen an image inside the mess!
>
> Thankyou!
Wow, thanks. I didn't realize my technique was any kind of improvement
over the traditional way.
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/22 17:23:
> Rick Measham wrote:
>>
>> Oh wow! This is the first time in my LIFE I've EVER been able to see
>> one of these things. For many years I was actually convinced the whole
>> thing was an 'Emporer's new clothes' scam. But using this technique,
>> I've FINALLY seen an image inside the mess!
>>
>> Thankyou!
>
> Wow, thanks. I didn't realize my technique was any kind of improvement
> over the traditional way.
>
> Sam
There are many techniques possible. The one that works best for you may be
totaly useless for the guy next to you.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That was way cool! It didn't take me long to see it, unlike those in books and
posters where I had to stare at them for what seem to be forever LOL. Nice job
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lace nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/23 02:18:
> That was way cool! It didn't take me long to see it, unlike those in books and
> posters where I had to stare at them for what seem to be forever LOL. Nice job
> :)
>
>
>
Many peoples find it easier to perceive the image with stereograms on a computer
screen rather than printed.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
EVERYTHING HAS A GENDER
You may not know this but many nonliving things have a gender...
A Hot Air Balloon is Male, because, to get it to go anywhere, you have to light
a fire under it, and of course, there's the hot air part.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lace wrote:
> That was way cool! It didn't take me long to see it, unlike those in books and
> posters where I had to stare at them for what seem to be forever LOL. Nice job
> :)
Glad you liked it, Lacie :)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
