3D anaglyph - How critical is image alignment?
Apr 11, 2018 09:09:11 #
It makes a big difference in the bare (without glasses) image but the effect on the anaglyph viewed with glasses is subtle.
So alignment is not critical. All three images look pretty much the same with anaglyph glasses. All three recede into the frame to the same degree.
What determines whether they recede or pop out of the screen appears to be a function of where the camera was pointing when the image was captured.
More later.
So alignment is not critical. All three images look pretty much the same with anaglyph glasses. All three recede into the frame to the same degree.
What determines whether they recede or pop out of the screen appears to be a function of where the camera was pointing when the image was captured.
More later.
Apr 11, 2018 09:39:11 #
The first one, with glasses, consistently bounced the pole around and ended up with two poles. The second one looked best. The third one tried to bounce around i.e. I couldn't get a good 3D focus.
Apr 11, 2018 09:50:29 #
Yes, pole in #2 looks best but pic has a little less depth too. Separation of cyan and red is minuscule comparatively.
DragonsLady wrote:
The first one, with glasses, consistently bounced the pole around and ended up with two poles. The second one looked best. The third one tried to bounce around i.e. I couldn't get a good 3D focus.
Apr 11, 2018 11:04:22 #
Fotoartist wrote:
Yes, pole in #2 looks best but pic has a little less depth too. Separation of cyan and red is minuscule comparatively.
The second image is more comfortable to view because your eyes need to move less as you move your attention from the post to the far or near parts of the scene. But overall, there is the same amount of eye crossing-uncrossing needed as you move from the immediate foreground to the distant horizon.
If your screen is large enough to view all three images and if you look at them squarely - head on - all three look about the same.
They all appear behind the surface of the display because I seem to recall that the camera was aimed at the same point on the horizon. In other words, the lens axes for the left and right eye view were parallel.
Apr 12, 2018 15:12:46 #
selmslie wrote:
... What determines whether they recede or pop out of the screen appears to be a function of where the camera was pointing when the image was captured. ...
It turns out that this is not the case and that my original instinct was correct. My original statement elsewhere was that, where there is no lateral displacement of the red or cyan relative to one another (the images are in register with no red or cyan fringes) that will coincide with the surface of the display.
You can see the difference by looking at the initial set of images above. I have looked at them more carefully since then after completing a separate test.
In the first image above aligned based on the background (when superimposed during post processing) everything else is floating above the surface of the display. For the image aligned based on the lamp post, everything beyond the post is behind the display and anything nearer is floating above it. When aligned using the near foreground, everything floats behind the surface of the display.
Even though the location of the image changes, the apparent depth does not because the same image pairs were used in each case and therefore the separation of the camera lens was the same.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.