Arches National Park (3D)
Apr 3, 2019 14:45:12 #
Arches National Park is evidently spectacular, whether in color or B&W.
(Enjoy in 2D, 3D cross eyed, or anaglyph. Download for more control over size. Images taken two shot, hand held, base approx 8 inches, post processed in Stereo Photo Maker and Photoshop.)
Yes, I note the tiny bit of foreground in the lower left I didn't catch in my crop! :)
Dave
(Enjoy in 2D, 3D cross eyed, or anaglyph. Download for more control over size. Images taken two shot, hand held, base approx 8 inches, post processed in Stereo Photo Maker and Photoshop.)
Yes, I note the tiny bit of foreground in the lower left I didn't catch in my crop! :)
Dave
Apr 4, 2019 07:50:44 #
Nice shot.
Incidentally, in the anaglyph version the left and right images are switched. It looks right if I swap my glasses around.
I have had that happen several times and finally discovered the cause. It happens when you load the pair into StereoPhoto Maker. To be sure to get it right, look at the upper left corner of the main window. The image names are listed in the order they are selected. Pressing X will swap them.
Incidentally, in the anaglyph version the left and right images are switched. It looks right if I swap my glasses around.
I have had that happen several times and finally discovered the cause. It happens when you load the pair into StereoPhoto Maker. To be sure to get it right, look at the upper left corner of the main window. The image names are listed in the order they are selected. Pressing X will swap them.
Apr 4, 2019 15:30:25 #
I didn't check the anaglyph because my glasses had wandered away. It would have been evident had I looked! :) My bad! And, the anaglyph revealed a nasty degree of rotation which my brain had apparently corrected for in cross eyed. I corrected that (not my brain, the rotation :) ). I wish we could edit more than an hour after a post.
I have reposted the corrected (I hope) set, and thanks for the cogent advice.
Dave
I have reposted the corrected (I hope) set, and thanks for the cogent advice.
Dave
Apr 4, 2019 15:40:05 #
theoldman wrote:
I didn't check the anaglyph because my glasses had wandered away. It would have been evident had I looked! :) My bad! And, the anaglyph revealed a nasty degree of rotation which my brain had apparently corrected for in cross eyed. I corrected that (not my brain, the rotation :) ). I wish we could edit more than an hour after a post.
I have reposted the corrected (I hope) set, and thanks for the cogent advice.
Dave
I have reposted the corrected (I hope) set, and thanks for the cogent advice.
Dave
Still not quite right. Note the pillar on the left. Both anaglyphs have the red image to the left of the cyan image. It should be the other way around.
Apr 4, 2019 20:48:47 #
I thought so myself!! And wondered why the first and second iterations had the blue overlay on the same side of a spire as the original.
I have no problem at all perceiving depth in cross eyed, but anaglyph is so poor for me, I can barely tell one from the other. i flip the sides, and it looks the same unless the depth is significant. I have expensive glasses but anaglyph has always been disappointing in color, darker, and unimpressive. That must be why I prefer cross eyed.
As an experiment, I simply loaded the cross eyed image and viewed the anaglyph image while flipping the sides back and forth. Neither had sufficient depth to be readily discernable....to me. But the difference was readily discernable in cross eyed. What does that suggest? Maybe I am somewhat color blind? Hopelessly addicted to freeviewing?
Dave
Dave
I have no problem at all perceiving depth in cross eyed, but anaglyph is so poor for me, I can barely tell one from the other. i flip the sides, and it looks the same unless the depth is significant. I have expensive glasses but anaglyph has always been disappointing in color, darker, and unimpressive. That must be why I prefer cross eyed.
As an experiment, I simply loaded the cross eyed image and viewed the anaglyph image while flipping the sides back and forth. Neither had sufficient depth to be readily discernable....to me. But the difference was readily discernable in cross eyed. What does that suggest? Maybe I am somewhat color blind? Hopelessly addicted to freeviewing?
Dave
Dave
Apr 4, 2019 21:19:35 #
theoldman wrote:
... But the difference was readily discernable in cross eyed. What does that suggest? Maybe I am somewhat color blind? Hopelessly addicted to freeviewing? ...
No, I don’t think either one is the case.
3D is a perception brought about through the cooperation between the eyes and the brain. Sometimes the mind takes over.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.