 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"stm31415" <stm### [at] gmail com> wrote:
....
> Any chance of a stereo pair, instead of analglyph?
>
> --
> Sam
Most other forms of stereo I just can't see, at least 95% of the time, so I
stick to anaglyphs.
This is suppose to be cross eye, but I don't see it.
http://ca.geocities.com/bishopject/Spare_tire_3dpair_sidebyside.png
Stephen S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
StephenS wrote:
> This is suppose to be cross eye, but I don't see it.
> http://ca.geocities.com/bishopject/Spare_tire_3dpair_sidebyside.png
Very nice. It worked. :-) You might want to move the customer's left
hand a bit, tho.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's a hand???
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> StephenS wrote:
> > This is suppose to be cross eye, but I don't see it.
> > http://ca.geocities.com/bishopject/Spare_tire_3dpair_sidebyside.png
>
> Very nice. It worked. :-) You might want to move the customer's left
> hand a bit, tho.
>
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>...You might want to move the customer's left
> hand a bit, tho.
Updated side by side picture.
http://ca.geocities.com/bishopject/Spare_tire_3dpair_sidebyside.png
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
StephenS wrote:
> Updated side by side picture.
> http://ca.geocities.com/bishopject/Spare_tire_3dpair_sidebyside.png
Nicer. BTW, if you get rid of the box around the images, it'll probably
be easier to view. To do an easy side-by-side, you need to have not too
much interference between the pictures, so there's some place to
"project" it. Or make the boxes narrower, leaving about the same
distance on the sides as you do on the middle, but leaving the
characters themselves at the same place on the page (i.e., so there's
more space between the two center boxes).
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
web.489317f95942dbd93e8cf27d0@news.povray.org...
> You do have a your/you're issue in there.
>
> Any chance of a stereo pair, instead of *analglyph*?
>
Is that ... painful?
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You're-and-Your
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"m_a_r_c" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message
news:4893616d$1@news.povray.org...
> > Any chance of a stereo pair, instead of *analglyph*?
> Is that ... painful?
Nah, just a little disgusting to look at.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"m_a_r_c" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:
> web.489317f95942dbd93e8cf27d0@news.povray.org...
>
> > You do have a your/you're issue in there.
> >
> > Any chance of a stereo pair, instead of *analglyph*?
> >
> Is that ... painful?
>
> Marc
Here's what I do:
1) Load the image in Gimp
2) Double the canvas width
3) Duplicate the layer and put it on the blank half
4) Channel mixer for left: monochrome: Red: 100%, Green: 0%, Blue: 0%
5) Channel mixer for right: monochrome: Red: 0%, Green 50%, Blue 50%
A little work, but not too bad, really.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > >
> > > Any chance of a stereo pair, instead of *analglyph*?
> > >
> > Is that ... painful?
> >
>
> 1) Load the image in Gimp
> 2) Double the canvas width
> 3) Duplicate the layer and put it on the blank half
> 4) Channel mixer for left: monochrome: Red: 100%, Green: 0%, Blue: 0%
> 5) Channel mixer for right: monochrome: Red: 0%, Green 50%, Blue 50%
>
Neglecting to mention, of course, step six --- which involves rubber gloves.
-S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
