1) Make a tube with your hand.
2) Close one eye.
3) Look through the tube at your rendered image. You should not be able
to see any of your screen or the surrounding room.

Voila! The image seems to pop out into amazing 3-d glory!

I imagine this works since we usually depend on two eyes to judge depth.
With one eye closed we depend on other kinds of visual clues. By
blocking out everything but the image, the only visula clues we have
left come from the pic itself.

This is really amazing. Try it!

The only disadvantage is that to block out the screen border you have to
block out most of the image as well...

Post a reply to this message

Simon de Vet <sde### [at] istarca> wrote :
>
> This is really amazing. Try it!
>

    It -does- seem to work! You have to pay attention but it really does
make more depth.

Post a reply to this message

I've just tried it, but I can't tell if it works or not.  

Simon de Vet wrote:
> 
> 1) Make a tube with your hand.
> 2) Close one eye.
> 3) Look through the tube at your rendered image. You should not be able
> to see any of your screen or the surrounding room.
> 
> Voila! The image seems to pop out into amazing 3-d glory!
> 
> I imagine this works since we usually depend on two eyes to judge depth.
> With one eye closed we depend on other kinds of visual clues. By
> blocking out everything but the image, the only visula clues we have
> left come from the pic itself.
> 
> This is really amazing. Try it!
> 
> The only disadvantage is that to block out the screen border you have to
> block out most of the image as well...

-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

Post a reply to this message

I believe it.  Really seems very much like a stereopair.  I tried this out
with a few photos too using a paper with hole punched out and it obviously
depends on lighting from what I could tell, a dark low contrast picture
still looks 2D so it reasons a raytrace needs to be well lit also.  By that
I mean light/shadow.  Maybe not, but that's my observation of it.  Right
about the external things needing to be occluded as well.
Btw, you've been included in my will now Simon.  Just kidding!  (I don't
have a will)

Bob

Steve <sjl### [at] ndirectcouk> wrote in message
news:38389657.FDDB1E6B@ndirect.co.uk...
> I've just tried it, but I can't tell if it works or not.
>
> Simon de Vet wrote:
> >
> > 1) Make a tube with your hand.
> > 2) Close one eye.
> > 3) Look through the tube at your rendered image. You should not be able
> > to see any of your screen or the surrounding room.
> >
> > Voila! The image seems to pop out into amazing 3-d glory!
> >
> > I imagine this works since we usually depend on two eyes to judge depth.
> > With one eye closed we depend on other kinds of visual clues. By
> > blocking out everything but the image, the only visula clues we have
> > left come from the pic itself.
> >
> > This is really amazing. Try it!
> >
> > The only disadvantage is that to block out the screen border you have to
> > block out most of the image as well...
>
> --
> Cheers
> Steve              email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
>
> %HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps.
>
> web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
>
> or  http://start.at/zero-pps
>

Post a reply to this message

What is really nice is interlaced (not fields, just flicking between left
and right images) images in sync with LCD glasses (i.e.  Right eye is
blocked off when left images is show, left eye blocked off when right image
is shown, at about 50 FPS).

That really looks great :)

--
Lance.
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
omniVERSE <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3838a37c@news.povray.org...
> I believe it.  Really seems very much like a stereopair.  I tried this out
> with a few photos too using a paper with hole punched out and it obviously
> depends on lighting from what I could tell, a dark low contrast picture
> still looks 2D so it reasons a raytrace needs to be well lit also.  By
that
> I mean light/shadow.  Maybe not, but that's my observation of it.  Right
> about the external things needing to be occluded as well.
> Btw, you've been included in my will now Simon.  Just kidding!  (I don't
> have a will)
>
> Bob
>
> Steve <sjl### [at] ndirectcouk> wrote in message
> news:38389657.FDDB1E6B@ndirect.co.uk...
> > I've just tried it, but I can't tell if it works or not.
> >
> > Simon de Vet wrote:
> > >
> > > 1) Make a tube with your hand.
> > > 2) Close one eye.
> > > 3) Look through the tube at your rendered image. You should not be
able
> > > to see any of your screen or the surrounding room.
> > >
> > > Voila! The image seems to pop out into amazing 3-d glory!
> > >
> > > I imagine this works since we usually depend on two eyes to judge
depth.
> > > With one eye closed we depend on other kinds of visual clues. By
> > > blocking out everything but the image, the only visula clues we have
> > > left come from the pic itself.
> > >
> > > This is really amazing. Try it!
> > >
> > > The only disadvantage is that to block out the screen border you have
to
> > > block out most of the image as well...
> >
> > --
> > Cheers
> > Steve              email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
> >
> > %HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps.
> >
> > web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
> >
> > or  http://start.at/zero-pps
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 16:34:45 +1000, "Lance Birch"
<lan### [at] usanet> wrote:

>What is really nice is interlaced (not fields, just flicking between left
>and right images) images in sync with LCD glasses (i.e.  Right eye is
>blocked off when left images is show, left eye blocked off when right image
>is shown, at about 50 FPS).
>
>That really looks great :)

I tried Descent once with the Cybermax glasses (was it Cybermax?).
Darn, it really looked like my monitor was 100 meters deep. I hardly
resisted the temptation to go behind it and see where those robots
were coming from :)


Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

I attempted the field rendering of left and right eye images when I first
tried out 3D stereopairs in the hopes ones brain would take over and do the
work of shifting sides.  Well my brain sure can't anyhow, not counting on
intelligence or anything like that, only fundamental senses to figure the
view correctly.  (if so, whew! since it would mean I'm not especially stupid
then).

Bob

Peter Popov <pet### [at] usanet> wrote in message
news:8GA5OLzpFC0Fz7pf85DrzlyKpuc2@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 16:34:45 +1000, "Lance Birch"
> <lan### [at] usanet> wrote:
>
> >What is really nice is interlaced (not fields, just flicking between left
> >and right images) images in sync with LCD glasses (i.e.  Right eye is
> >blocked off when left images is show, left eye blocked off when right
image
> >is shown, at about 50 FPS).
> >
> >That really looks great :)
>
> I tried Descent once with the Cybermax glasses (was it Cybermax?).
> Darn, it really looked like my monitor was 100 meters deep. I hardly
> resisted the temptation to go behind it and see where those robots
> were coming from :)
>
>
> Peter Popov
> ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:18:21 -0600, "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom>
wrote:

>I attempted the field rendering of left and right eye images when I first
>tried out 3D stereopairs in the hopes ones brain would take over and do the
>work of shifting sides.  Well my brain sure can't anyhow, not counting on
>intelligence or anything like that, only fundamental senses to figure the
>view correctly.  (if so, whew! since it would mean I'm not especially stupid
>then).
>
>Bob

That's different. What Lance and myself are talking about works like
this: you put on a pair of glasses with a single LCD plate in front of
each eye. These are not displays, they only block light when needed.
So the computer displays left eye and right eye images full-screen,
and blocks the appropriate eye's view simultaneously. So your left eye
only sees the left eye picture and the right eye, accordingly. No eye
crossing or whatever. The result is a full-screed 3D image or
animation (like in Descent) without eye strain nor headache. Sure
looks cool!


Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

Have any of you tried to place two images (a stereo pair) next to one
another and view them just like that: the left eye looks at the left and the
right at the right image. The brain fuses them and you have your perfect 3D
view! All in true color!
Pictures not spaced much more than about 6 or 7 cm.
Or: reverse the pair and squinting at them: same result though it's more of
a strain to the eyes.
All this is easier for older people with presbyopia.
Sander
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.amtechnical.com/jeff/rose.html

Simon de Vet <sde### [at] istarca> schreef in berichtnieuws
38386D60.E9A800A3@istar.ca...
> 1) Make a tube with your hand.
> 2) Close one eye.
> 3) Look through the tube at your rendered image. You should not be able
> to see any of your screen or the surrounding room.
>
> Voila! The image seems to pop out into amazing 3-d glory!
>
> I imagine this works since we usually depend on two eyes to judge depth.
> With one eye closed we depend on other kinds of visual clues. By
> blocking out everything but the image, the only visula clues we have
> left come from the pic itself.
>
> This is really amazing. Try it!
>
> The only disadvantage is that to block out the screen border you have to
> block out most of the image as well...
>

Post a reply to this message

Sander wrote:

> All this is easier for older people with presbyopia.

Presbyopia ? Is that a type of myopia that presbyterians suffer from ?

<G>

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1200+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Yep, but that's what I wanted to see, if it could be worked around the
shutter glasses type thing.  I mean, gee, why doesn't the mind filter it
across in a way where if it looks left-sided or right-sided shouldn't you
think it actually is?  Of course I only tried a few frame rates for this and
the slower rates were just plain ugly, faster and it looked like one merged
image.  It just wasn't meant to be.

Bob

Peter Popov <pet### [at] usanet> wrote in message
news:baw5OHqzGN5I5a6aYCh9wcgVUwiz@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:18:21 -0600, "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom>
> wrote:
>
> >I attempted the field rendering of left and right eye images when I first
> >tried out 3D stereopairs in the hopes ones brain would take over and do
the
> >work of shifting sides.  Well my brain sure can't anyhow, not counting on
> >intelligence or anything like that, only fundamental senses to figure the
> >view correctly.  (if so, whew! since it would mean I'm not especially
stupid
> >then).
> >
> >Bob
>
> That's different. What Lance and myself are talking about works like
> this: you put on a pair of glasses with a single LCD plate in front of
> each eye. These are not displays, they only block light when needed.
> So the computer displays left eye and right eye images full-screen,
> and blocks the appropriate eye's view simultaneously. So your left eye
> only sees the left eye picture and the right eye, accordingly. No eye
> crossing or whatever. The result is a full-screed 3D image or
> animation (like in Descent) without eye strain nor headache. Sure
> looks cool!
>
>
> Peter Popov
> ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

I have, been doing photographs of scenery for several years now by shifting
the camera a little left or right.  Got a few renders to do that with too on
one of my web pages.  I first saw it in the Photography magazine and I was
instantly amazed.  It's terrible on the eyes though if the images are large
or close, which means detail is usually lost because of being smaller or
further away.
Time and again I've almost gotten a stereoscope or lenses to make one, just
nothing like seeing straight fullcolor 3D without an apparatus, no
comparsion I think.

Bob

Sander <san### [at] the-internet> wrote in message
news:3839b307@news.povray.org...
> Have any of you tried to place two images (a stereo pair) next to one
> another and view them just like that: the left eye looks at the left and
the
> right at the right image. The brain fuses them and you have your perfect
3D
> view! All in true color!
> Pictures not spaced much more than about 6 or 7 cm.
> Or: reverse the pair and squinting at them: same result though it's more
of
> a strain to the eyes.
> All this is easier for older people with presbyopia.
> Sander
> --
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> http://www.amtechnical.com/jeff/rose.html
>
> Simon de Vet <sde### [at] istarca> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 38386D60.E9A800A3@istar.ca...
> > 1) Make a tube with your hand.
> > 2) Close one eye.
> > 3) Look through the tube at your rendered image. You should not be able
> > to see any of your screen or the surrounding room.
> >
> > Voila! The image seems to pop out into amazing 3-d glory!
> >
> > I imagine this works since we usually depend on two eyes to judge depth.
> > With one eye closed we depend on other kinds of visual clues. By
> > blocking out everything but the image, the only visula clues we have
> > left come from the pic itself.
> >
> > This is really amazing. Try it!
> >
> > The only disadvantage is that to block out the screen border you have to
> > block out most of the image as well...
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Have you seen those 3D IMAX movies with the polarized projectors and
polarized glasses?

--
David   http://thunder.prohosting.com/~davidf  (ICQ 55354965)
"The paper holds their folded faces to the floor" -Pink Floyd

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov <pet### [at] usanet> wrote ...
>
> I tried Descent once with the Cybermax glasses (was it Cybermax?).
> Darn, it really looked like my monitor was 100 meters deep. I hardly
> resisted the temptation to go behind it and see where those robots
> were coming from :)

With one of the Descent games (I think it was Descent 1), if you choose the
correct 3-d option, it would put two images side-by-side on the monitor, and
if you then looked at it cross-eyed, it would look 3d.  No glasses needed,
but talk about a headache!

Regarding the original post: if you play those 3d first-person games with
one eye blocked, you can see quite a bit of 'fake' depth.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

YUP! :)))

Sooooo cool!!!

There is an IMAX cinema offering this in Brisbane.

--
Lance.
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
David Fontaine <lfo### [at] isdnet> wrote in message
news:383A063B.47CDE078@isd.net...
> Have you seen those 3D IMAX movies with the polarized projectors and
> polarized glasses?
>
> --
> David   http://thunder.prohosting.com/~davidf  (ICQ 55354965)
> "The paper holds their folded faces to the floor" -Pink Floyd
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Sander wrote:
> 
> Have any of you tried to place two images (a stereo pair) next to one
> another and view them just like that: the left eye looks at the left and the
> right at the right image. The brain fuses them and you have your perfect 3D
> view! All in true color!

I have.. I could never get it to work properly, though.

Those of you with repetitive desktops (say, Mac-users using large
patterns) may find that if you allow your eyes to cross and defocus a
little until the pattern resolves again, it'll seem to sink into the
screen while windows and icons float above it (albeit as blurred double
images, but it's still a cool effect).

Okay, that had nothing to do with POV-Ray, but I thought I'd share. ^^

-- 
Xplo Eristotle
http://start.at/xplosion/

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:
> I tried Descent once with the Cybermax glasses (was it Cybermax?).

Yes, it was CyberMax(x). I tried it at a show in Boston. Amazing.
Evem lowly MS's Ultimate Flight (or how it is named) was amazing.
Flying a curve and looking to the left over the wing, I was tempted
to puke....

> Darn, it really looked like my monitor was 100 meters deep. I hardly
> resisted the temptation to go behind it and see where those robots
> were coming from :)

I don't need glasses for that. If they shoot at me, I always evade
to one side or the other ;-)

Markus
-- 
Der deutsche Schlager ist aus dem Klofenster gesprungen....

Post a reply to this message

In article <383A3898.F1B64BD3@unforgettable.com>, Xplo Eristotle
<inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote:

> Those of you with repetitive desktops (say, Mac-users using large
> patterns) may find that if you allow your eyes to cross and defocus a
> little until the pattern resolves again, it'll seem to sink into the
> screen while windows and icons float above it (albeit as blurred double
> images, but it's still a cool effect).

Yeah, I have noticed this before, especially when I am extremely bored
and tired.
Actually, right now I have an image covering my desktop, Macs have had
that capability built into the OS since Mac OS 8(or was it System
7.6?). So we aren't restricted to tileable patterns any more.

That gives me an idea, have the desktop image alternate between the two
views and use the LCD glasses, that should be an interesting effect.
Even better if the window and icon positions are adjusted so they
appear to have depth. Might actually make it easier to use.

-- 
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message

I thought the CyberMaxx was never released? Or was it just the Mac
version?
The original Marathon(a Mac first-person shooter game) was supposed to
have support for it, but nobody ever got to use it...

-- 
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> I thought the CyberMaxx was never released? Or was it just the Mac
> version?

No, it was a PC version. I can remember some ads for the Cybermax,
but never have seen a real thing, except for the show. It was the
company that developed it.

Markus
-- 
Der deutsche Schlager ist aus dem Klofenster gesprungen....

Post a reply to this message

In article <383AA0F7.C5C80BF1@zess.uni-siegen.de>, Markus Becker
<bec### [at] zessuni-siegende> wrote:

> Chris Huff wrote:
> > 
> > I thought the CyberMaxx was never released? Or was it just the Mac
> > version?
> 
> No, it was a PC version. I can remember some ads for the Cybermax,
> but never have seen a real thing, except for the show. It was the
> company that developed it.

I meant "Or was it just the Mac version that wasn't released?". I don't
think the company ever released it for either platform, has anyone ever
seen one for sale?

-- 
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message

On the web I found a pov-file that makes a stereoscopic camera and
produces two pictures: one for the left eye, one for the right one. It
works. I think it is at www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/2006/
chris

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:32:06 -0500, "Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom>
wrote:

>With one of the Descent games (I think it was Descent 1), if you choose the
>correct 3-d option, it would put two images side-by-side on the monitor, and
>if you then looked at it cross-eyed, it would look 3d.  No glasses needed,
>but talk about a headache!

The option is -vfx and works in at least Descent I and I think Descent
II (I don't have them installed right now). It is not a cross eye but
rather diverge eyes. There is a method described in the readme on how
to make a simple device (no optics just some paper/cartboard) which
makes visualizing such 3D much easier.

>Regarding the original post: if you play those 3d first-person games with
>one eye blocked, you can see quite a bit of 'fake' depth.

Yeah, but then how will you keep an eye on your health/armor? :)

>-Nathan


Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:19:53 -0500, Chris Huff
<chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>I meant "Or was it just the Mac version that wasn't released?". I don't
>think the company ever released it for either platform, has anyone ever
>seen one for sale?

I've seen LCD shutter glasses for sale here, in the range of about DEM
100. Whether they were Cybermax or not I cannot tell, but I seem to
associate all such glasses with that name (as it's the only one that I
know :) ). The ones I played with may have been another brand, I have
no idea, but Descent suported them. Might have even been an OEM
version of Descent (one such thing came with my ViRGE "3D").


Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

The only other 3D glasses I know of come with the Formac
ProFormance3(with a processor named Permedia). I don't know if there is
a PC version, but there is a 3D accelerator with 16MB RAM and CyberPro
3D glasses for $369.
Ever hear of this one?

-- 
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 17:22:45 -0500, Chris Huff
<chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>The only other 3D glasses I know of come with the Formac
>ProFormance3(with a processor named Permedia). I don't know if there is
>a PC version, but there is a 3D accelerator with 16MB RAM and CyberPro
>3D glasses for $369.
>Ever hear of this one?

Chris, I am talking of stuff that was out as far back as 1995. There
were no 3D accelerators for the PC back then. Helmets, glasses and
such were almost sci-fi back then. Anyway, never mind.


Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 21:53:26 +0100, chris <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:

>On the web I found a pov-file that makes a stereoscopic camera and
>produces two pictures: one for the left eye, one for the right one. It
>works. I think it is at www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/2006/
>chris

  Glenn McCarter took Third Place in the Internet Ray Tracing
Competition, Jan-Feb 1998, "Great Engineering Achievements" category,
with his image. See:

http://www.irtc.org/stills/1998-02-28.html

-- 
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> I've seen LCD shutter glasses for sale here, in the range of about DEM
> 100. Whether they were Cybermax or not I cannot tell, but I seem to

That's Elsa.

Markus
-- 
Der deutsche Schlager ist aus dem Klofenster gesprungen....

Post a reply to this message

I didn't realize it until I encountered this that when I was a kid and the
family went to a restaurant (not a real fancy kind) every month or so I
picked up on the repetitive pattern in the tabletop, you know those kind
with smallish modern art designs in them (60's era)?  Well it made me
remember how I was staring into the table and this same effect happened and
from then on I was always trying to convince everyone else I was seeing
something strange.  Needless to say looking back on it the parents were
probably wondering what was wrong with me.  All I recall is how they would
try and say that yeah the pattern in the tabletop was interesting.  Think I
went back to the usual sort of thing of finding shapes and such in the
patterns in the usual way eventually.
Funny though how I never had a comparison to be able to remember that right
until I saw this effect in tiled patterns on the computer screen.

Bob

Chris Huff <chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:231119990716473246%chr### [at] yahoocom...
> In article <383A3898.F1B64BD3@unforgettable.com>, Xplo Eristotle
> <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote:
>
> > Those of you with repetitive desktops (say, Mac-users using large
> > patterns) may find that if you allow your eyes to cross and defocus a
> > little until the pattern resolves again, it'll seem to sink into the
> > screen while windows and icons float above it (albeit as blurred double
> > images, but it's still a cool effect).
>
> Yeah, I have noticed this before, especially when I am extremely bored
> and tired.
> Actually, right now I have an image covering my desktop, Macs have had
> that capability built into the OS since Mac OS 8(or was it System
> 7.6?). So we aren't restricted to tileable patterns any more.
>
> That gives me an idea, have the desktop image alternate between the two
> views and use the LCD glasses, that should be an interesting effect.
> Even better if the window and icon positions are adjusted so they
> appear to have depth. Might actually make it easier to use.
>
> --
> Chris Huff
> e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
> Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message

I made my own pov stereoviewer quite a while ago too, just guessed at the
construction but I ended up with double pairs of mirrors angled a little
more and less than 45 degrees.  The renders using it to make the stereo
pairs was slow and camera field of view is constrained a lot that way,
although I did work out enough of a adjustability to suffice for average
scenes.
At least I ended up with a model of it so a rendering of itself was worth
the making ; )

Bob

chris <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:383AFEC6.4320246B@gmx.de...
> On the web I found a pov-file that makes a stereoscopic camera and
> produces two pictures: one for the left eye, one for the right one. It
> works. I think it is at www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/2006/
> chris

Post a reply to this message

omniVERSE <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:383bd75b@news.povray.org...
> I didn't realize it until I encountered this that when I was a kid and the
> family went to a restaurant (not a real fancy kind) every month or so I
> picked up on the repetitive pattern in the tabletop, you know those kind
> with smallish modern art designs in them (60's era

    I used to do the same thing. Any small repeated pattern was subject of
an intensive session of relaxed staring. The best was my (5th grade?) math
book. It had a multiple exposure of some bouncing balls on the cover and of
you chose two and got them to line up they would rise out of the page.

    My friends thought I was nuts... they still do... but then I still do
that trick. In fact I have some small tile-able backgrounds that I put on my
desktop just for such things. If you choose the right ones your Icons seem
to float about an inch above your screen. Unfortunately, if you
look -right-at- your Icons, they pop back to the surface. I keep threatening
to make some Icons that have some stereo properties so that they can float
while I am looking at them but I never have gotten around to it.

Post a reply to this message