Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

You still at it, Scotty? You can keep up your rant as long as you wish, but, Having claimed that all the images I have posted are 2-D to 3-D conversions ..charging that all are from two-dimensional images , you are flat-out wrong. Most of the posted images do. in fact, display the 3-D effect, whether originating from two images of a subject or scene or from a single 2-D image with 3-D conversion. You just can't seem to tell the difference. Stomp your little feet and pump your little gifts like a kid in the toy aisle at Walmart, but it doesn't change the fact that you are simply wrong and that what you say is so just because you say it's so! You just haven't looked at the images I've posted because you don't know how to view them by free-viewing/free-merging"
You need to learn the skills, Scotty.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You are the only one ranting here. Why the taunts and insults? Have I resorted to childish language? No, I have not but you have several times. Why can't you address the facts coolly and rationally?

I asked you to identify which images are not 2D-3D conversions (i.e., captured from two vantage points) and you did not or could not. Are there any? Which ones? Don't you remember?

Why have you repeatedly offered to do the conversions for single images provided by others, including mine?

Have I been wrong in everything I have said? Or just some of it? Have I said anything that is right?

I explained exactly why in this earlier post. Maybe you should read it.

I have no need to do so. It will not improve my life.

Really, this is getting repetitious. If you don't clean up your act I will just Unwatch as apparently everyone else has already done.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

First, Scotty, there is no reason for such anger and for denying that you have, in fact, viewed the images I have posted., having claimed, as you repeatedly have, that you have viewed them all. If you had, you have proven your inability to differentiate the 3-D effect produced by two-perspective stereo pairs and the 3-D effect produced by stereo-pairs resulting from 2--D to 3-D conversion. In fact, one of the "two- perspective pairs" is identified as such, one is not. Go back and look at the three images provided specifically for you to examine and differentiate. Take your time, read s-l-o-w-l-y with tutelage from your ESL teacher as you again read the posts and examine the images you claim to have examined, and you will find at least one if not both of the two-perspective stereo pairs.
Don't be upset, Scotty. You are not being singled out. Some have discovered on their own which are which. I have never indulged in "spoon-feeding"...and certainly do not intend to start now. It has been my experience that knowledge gained by one's own efforts is far more valuable than that laid out generously before them, with no serious effort expected from them. If you can, as you have claimed, easily differentiate two-view stereo pairs from 2-D to 3-D conversions, it should be easy for you.
So take some deep breaths, carefully repeat your examination of all the 3-D pairs I have posted, and, if you are telling the truth that you are capable of free-viewing, and truly believe that you can differentiate the two types of stereo pairs (because, supposedly, there can be no 3-D effect from image pairs not derived from two views) you should have no trouble. But please, Scotty, don't throw a childish tantrum simply because I won't reveal any more than I already have, which of my posted pairs are of each sort.

it's Saturday night, Scotty. Why not get a good night's sleep, have a good breakfast, and then set to your task. I'm sure you will feel better for having put out the honest effort rather than having been "spoon fed" the answers! C'mon, Scotty, show us you can back up your words and opinions with some hard facts derived from your personal examination of the already provided samples...or admit that you have no idea what you are talking about....

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

What anger? It's yours, not mine. I have been offering a purely technical critique of your presentation and you have been ungraciously taken it personally. I am not emotionally involved in this effort, only perplexed by your reactions. I don't really care and apparently nobody else does either.

Consider the following objectively.

Looking at the links at the top of this thread, there are some samples that indeed appear to have been captured from two positions. However, there are problems that make these images difficult to see in 3D:

1. The Jeep images are seriously misaligned. The image on the right is much higher and rotated slightly counterclockwise.
2. The image with the bicycle is also misaligned. The image on the right is somewhat lower and rotated clockwise.
3. For the succulents, the second image on the parallel row is significantly higher than the first and rotated significantly clockwise.
4. In the canopy IR image, parts of the image are higher and others are lower. There appears to have been some subject movement so there is no way to judge the alignment and no possible 3D effect.

Hand-held does not work unless you are diligent in lining up the images later and even then the subjects must be stationary. Otherwise it is not worth the effort to look at them.

The images I submitted were taken using a tripod with the extension mounted horizontally. Even that does not guarantee alignment.

Using what you have learned from all of this maybe you will be more successful with your next attempt. Just don't expect anyone to beat a path to your door.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

As you can see, your hand held examples do no hold up well under close scrutiny. They were executed and presented so carelessly that they weakened your case.

There would have been no need to do that analysis if you had been forthcoming about which ones used two vantage points and which were generated from a single image.

There would have been no contention if you had not introduced the idea of creating a stereo pair from a single image and asked others to submit such images for you to convert from 2D to 3D.

Now you will realize that I know exactly what I am talking about. You will also have to admit that you did a pretty sloppy job on your end.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Ah Hah! So now you admit that you had NOT HERETOFORE examined all the imagesI had posted.

And you now are critiquing the images as to technique rather than do they or do they not reveal the 3-D effect.

and you still not differentiating between two-perspective pairs and 2-D to 3-D conversions.have not yet committed to picking out the two-perspectives pair or pairs from the images posted at.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-397069-1.html

And here are three more for you to categorize....3-d perceptible or not? And for each...is it a two-perspective pair or a 2-D to 3-D conversion?

A

(Download)

C

(Download)

B

(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I have made my points. 2D to 3D (from a single image) does not work and you are not very very good at presenting 3D pairs from two vantage points.

I'm not interested in playing games with you.

Unwatched.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Pretty high number of views ( 1,160) before one disgruntled respondent picked up his toys and went home ! I presume that he departed because either he doesn't know how to free- view the stereo pairs or could not get agreement from anyone on his contention that the 3-D effect is limited to "two-perspective" pairs.

Any other viewers (who are able to free-view stereo pairs) are more than welcome and encouraged to have a look at the three pairs seen two posts back ( "A", "C", and "B" in the order shown -had to replace one) and comment as to whether or not some, all, or none of the three demonstrate the Three-D effect, and if possible identify the single pair that was made with two-perspectives.
Each of the presented samples can be viewed either by the parallel-view technique, or by the crossed eye technique, and have been sized and placed to make either viewing technique as easy as possible.

When appropriately viewed with either technique, a third, well-focused image will appear between the posted pair of images. that's the image that is to be evaluated for whether or not it demonstrates the 3-D effect.

Whatever your responses, your input will be appreciated.

Dave