Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

With Erich Brunner’™s permission, I am posting 3D conversions of two scenes he has posted of similar distant perspectives but very different in foregrounds. In one case, there is well-chosen prominent foreground detail in the lower left. In the other case there is skillful internal framing of more distant features by peripheral foreground foliage and vegetation. The differences are obvious, and each is notably effective in its own manner without consideration of 3D conversion.

Erich has presented a concise clinic on the effects of different foreground treatments in posting these two original images, albeit in different threads,
https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2018/8/14/736460-indian_lake_in_the_morning.jpg

https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2018/8/14/248956-sunup.jpg

My purpose for posting the 3D conversions of these two different images is to solicit opinions on the degree to which each 3D conversion emphasizes the inherent degree of a sense of depth contributed by the foregrounds of two original images.

The specific technique of 3D conversion for each of the images was chosen based on the potential of each technique to best emphasize depth recession in each of the two different images of differing compositions.

I am particularly hoping for commentary and criticism from viewers competent in viewing the posted 3D image pairs.

I regret the necessity of noting that there is a single (count ‘˜em...one) critic/troll who posts pms to those permitting me to carry out 3D conversions on their images, as well as to those favorably commenting on them. Thus, if you would rather respond to me by pm, please feel free to do so.
I will summarize any privately submitted comments/critiques (without identification of the commenters) in a later post.

Thanks, in advance, for your participation and assistance.

Dave Graham

(Download)


(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I can't comment on the 3D conversions, but as far as the foregrounds are concerned, I find myself making more and more use of foreground elements that will have a channeling effect or a framing effect. Even if the effect isn't pronounced, it still manages to lift the shot and guide the viewer into the shot.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Which reminds me, Coz, of your recent post of a view across Loch Etricht.

https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2018/7/19/451565-loch_ericht_4.jpg

After I had made a 3D conversion, the path described by the sequential differentiable depths in that scene did, indeed, get my eye into a graceful “slot” as you put it!

Here is the 3D conversion, and then the perceived “œslot” of depth recession.

Of course, depth recedes in an average, unidirectional net recession in any image of non-linear perspective, but whenever I see your view of Loch Etricht...which I take was almost an afterthought... that graceful curve from foreground to infinity takes over! Love that foreground!

Best regards from the upper great plaines.

(Download)


(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Hi New World Coz. When I took the shot, what caught my eye was the framing of the foreground giving way to glimpses of what lies beyond, so in essence it was the depth that I liked. Neither the foreground nor the distant view are remarkable on their own, but together they are more than the sum of their parts. Plus it was an engaging view to see first-hand and the shot reminds me of it.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

I owe you all an apology.

It has belatedly been called to my attention in another thread... unfortunately, a contentious one... that I had reversed the images in an experimental 3D image pair prepared from an original image by Erich Brunner.

In the interest of full disclosure, the image reversal was noted by the perennial critic mentioned in my first post above. I express gratitude to Norman A. Elmslie (“Scotty” /selmslie) for his sharp eye.

The image pair in question is the top one of the two 3D image quads posted in this thread.

The corrected image order is seen in this newly posted stereo quad.

My error was to reverse the image pairs intended for parallel and for crossed gaze.
If you wish to see them correctly , view the top pair by crossed gaze, and the lower pair by parallel gaze.
or
Look at the newly posted quad in the normal manner: top pair by parallel gaze and bottom pair by crossed gaze.

The interesting point concerning this image pair is that neither of the pair is the base 2D image Erich posted.

I mentioned that it was experimental. The pair (as correctly mounted) is the result (as can be seen, finally successful) of a pairing of two different, but complementary geometric transformations which, in proper sequence, serve as a
laudably complementary, indeed, synergistic image pair when viewed by stereopsis. Actually, it is a breakthrough, of sorts, as it constitutes the first evidence of synergism between two different, albeit complementary transformations in a single 3D pair when mounted in correct sequence. Inexplicably (so far...) the synergy works to different degrees of success depending on the sequence of the transformations.

Again, my apologies for my error and for having to belatedly post the correctly mounted image pair.


My mistake; Mea culpa!
Stuff happens, which is why book have editors!

I do continue to be gratified by the 3D effect that is rendered by the synergistic pair technique. It was a technique that was suggested in the workshop I gave at a symposium at which I presented my work last June and it certainly deserved correct presentation in its first public on-line display! This technique has evolved into yet another chapter in my book on mononuclear depth cue stereography currently in preparation.

And, again, thanks to Scotty for pointing out my mistake.

Best regards,
Dave

(Download)