Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hi, rehess, In another thread you asked:



This is a chapter to itself in the book I am writing on 2D to 3D conversion.

Basically, the same characteristics Ilook for are those that usually make one say: “€œSure wish I could see THAT in 3D”

They include:

good foreground object/detail

a sense of depth, even in 2D, that “€œpulls you in”

linear perspective

receding perspective lines...straight or winding road or river...

distant detail that you woul€™d like to see in contour with depth separation, rather than the usual dimensionless €”painted stage backdrop” due to fall-off of the effect of horizontal parallax somewhere in the middle ground.

A dramatic sky above interesting terrain with a relatively clean horizon

internal framing

An image with an obvious vanishing point within ...or close to....or at the edge ...or just beyond the edge of the image.

In close-ups and macros:
obvious different levels of detail.

No image possesses all these features, but the more there are, the better the chances for a good 3D conversion.

And I obviously haven’€™t figured out all the indicators of success, because I sometimes receive an image for conversion that I am convinced lacks any promise, but every once in a while what I consider to be an unlikely or hopeless candidate can turn out to provide a stunning 3D conversion. Those are ones I marvel over and study most.

The two 3D conversions illustrated below (the two I most recently posted and which my solitary, frustratedly angry critic claims reveal no 3D effects...?) represent two extremes of degrees of likelihood to be successful candidates for 3D conversion., but both worked well.

The “€œRed Chairs”€ is an example of uncomplicated “€œsweep”€ depth recession from the bottom (the plane of closest perception) to the top (infinity in the sky). It includes distant, background hills across the water that are crying out for revelation of the range of their depths and of their contours unrevealed in the original 2D image (the left eye image). A basic transformation of the original rectangle that exaggeratedly maximizes the important monocular cues at the bottom, while minimizing them at the top fills the bill of optimal vertical spatial disparity between the base (left eye) image and the disparate ( right eye) image that allows our cortical visual center to provide our consciousness with the desired 3D effect, revealing depths and contours all the way to the horizon.

The “€œCyclamen” image, submitted by a photographer well savvy in viewing stereo pairs, was a more complex challenge. The saving graces in the offered image are the obvious multiple depths within the low foliage and the beautifully and gently rendered white blossoms with contours of practically each petal available to be accentuated against the stark, dead black background. Deciding on the optimal direction of depth recession was aided by using the direction toward which the lighting was directed (brighter toward darker) as revealed by the brighter, slightly higher green foliage on the right and the darker, lower foliage on the left. So, of the forty-odd specific transformations that I have devised as my basic tool kit (each of which can be imposed in an infinite range of strengths of action), one that directs depth recession to the lower left at a lower strength was chosen to impose the necessary exaggerated direction of depth recession. And the result, I feel, is commensurate with the beautifully gentle presentation of this floral arrangement. And, of course, when the base image’€™s original photographer, one well capable in stereo image viewing, explicitly states that he easily saw my intended 3D effect, that is also rewarding!

That’€™s a pretty good summary of the sorts of characteristics and features I look for in candidates for 2D-to-3D conversion.

Thanks, rehess, for the good question.

Note that these images are not to be downloaded or modified for any purpose without my permission tand permission of the original poster’s.

Dave

(Download)


(Download)

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I see the 3D. I don't understand the point.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hi, Fotoartist,

The point is that 3D versions of 2D images permit another layer of dimension...further perspectives, if you will, of enjoyment of those original flat, 2D images.

In several respects, the 3D conversions are being judged superior in the nature of depth recession revealed. Some consider them to be far superior in their natural appearance of depth recession, as well as superior in the perceived distance of continued perceptible depth differences to the two-view captures by the classic two-lens stereo cameras.
Few modern photographers are willing to futz with calculating inter-lens distances required for different sorts of images. Keeping in mind the possibility of 3D conversions greatly expands the realms of enjoyment possible from many 2D images. It requires only learning the simple techniques of parallel gaze and/or crossed gaze viewing of stereo image pairs.

Some prefer the results of traditional stereo photography.
Some prefer the results of 2D to 3D conversion.
A great many simply prefer the 2D results of classic photography.

Y’ pays y’r money, and makes y’r choice!

Dave

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Can you direct me to the software that does that? Do you have to make a cha cha shot?

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

I am not aware of any software that automates the process of 2D to 3D conversion . As the name indicates it involves making a stereo image pair from a single 2D image.

The name does not indicate that it is accomplished by modifying monocular cues in a copy of the base image - the original 2D image - by geometric transformation to induce disparities promoting stereopsis when the modified copy and the original 2D image are stereoptically viewed as a stereo pair.

So, no, there is no “Cha cha” technique involved.

Dave

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

This what the president of the Detroit Stereographic Society said about your statement regarding good candidates for 2D to 3D conversion. "t’s all much more complex than I can explain. I can’t imagine anyone thinking that 2D to 3D conversion is preferred over learning to shoot stereo images. If there’s no chance to get a stereo photo, like if the 2D photo was taken long ago, then conversion is the only way, but it’s a LOT of work. Even with all of the time and work it still might not be very good."

So maybe the main prerequisite of your process is it is the last resort.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

At the moment, it is merely the means of experiencing the 3D eff3ct from selected extant 2D images.
As more interested people become familiar with the potential of monocular depth cues to contribute to stereopsis and render depth recession that proceeds fully to the horizon (rather than dropping off in 60to 100yards after the utility of horizontal parallax wanes to zero, leaving the background appearing as a painted stage backdrop, I suspect that classical stereo photography will become passé, except for those who revel in the punctuated depth recession and cardboard cut-out appearance of foreground and midground objects characteristic of the two-view style of imagery.

There are obvious means of making exposures that accommodate to the needs of 2D images to be optimal candidates for 3D conversion. I am confident it is a means of 3D imagery that is still in its infancy and will undergo considerable refinement as its advantages come to be more and more appreciated.

As I say, you pays your money and takes your choice.

But have a look at these examples of 2D to 3D conversions. I challenge any two-lens stereo photogaraph pair to equal the 3D effects of these conversion pairs.

..and by the way, the 3D conversion of the crane in flight was predicted, on the basis of the ridiculous, bogus “Elmslie merge test” to be incapable of yielding a coherent 3D image.. and yet he goes on and on in opposition to 3D conversion. Just a bad habit he ought drop!

Note that the images posted here are not to be downloaded, manipulated in any way, nor posted by anyone without my express permission.


Food for thought.

Dave

(Download)


(Download)

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Dave, Nicely done on the red chairs. Very crisp and obvious 3D effect in parallel gaze. Congratulations to you and Minnie.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Thanks, Don, for the congrats! Without minnie’s consummate skill in the original composition, the 3D conversion would have been nowhere near as effective.

Dave

gmsatty Loc: Chicago IL

I own a Lytro Illim light field camera that has a single lens yet the pictures can be converted to 3D with the Lytro software.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hi, gmsatty,

I have heard that reported. Do you know the details of the 3D renderings and if their files can be be transmitted online?

Dave

gmsatty Loc: Chicago IL

Yes. There are two options. One uses the old style where you need to wear red and blue glasses. The other can be projected using a 3 d tv in which two images are created with slightly different perspective. I admit the camera is a novelty, but it takes very interesting pictures. It was originally 1400, but I saw it on sale at B and H. I had a bonus gift card and used that to purchase it. The full price was about 350.00 Camera has no f stops. Shoots at F2 and then the depth of field is adjusted in post processing. The software also has a feature where you can make a 2 or 3 second movie showing the picture moving through the depth of the photo at f 2 and the ending up with thieving in focus at f 15

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

You guys are a little ahead of me but I just saw a 3D demonstration today of Jim Long's work in 2D to 3D conversion of Old Master Paintings. It blew me away. Everyone who saw it said the same word, amazing! This guy must be an artist himself to be able to dissect a painting into depth. To create the Mona Lisa for example, in 3D. It was shown on a 3D HD TV.

gmsatty Loc: Chicago IL

I wonder what type of camera he used. Was it a stereo camera, a Lytro Illim or some technique with a single camera and two photos to create a stereo picture?

gmsatty Loc: Chicago IL

Here is one of the Lytro videos