3D from the Hofwyl-Broadfield Plantation
Apr 4, 2019 10:03:27 #
You will need a pair of anaglyph glasses to view the first image in 3D. It can be viewed on your monitor at any size.
Yesterday we visited the plantation north of Brunswick, GA. I took 14 stereo pairs and I will present several of these here. The main attraction in these images is the complexity of the overlapping elements. In such cases, the only practical way to make a 3D image is with two separate captures.
I am posting both the anaglyph and free view versions (parallel and cross eyed view) for each image.
My thread in the Main Photography Discussion, 3D - How a Stereo Image Pair Can Be Displayed, got very little response. There may be more interest in 3D here in the Photo Gallery.
The question for those who are interested, which version do you prefer? Please mention if you don't have anaglyph glasses and then indicate whether you prefer parallel or cross eyed.
Yesterday we visited the plantation north of Brunswick, GA. I took 14 stereo pairs and I will present several of these here. The main attraction in these images is the complexity of the overlapping elements. In such cases, the only practical way to make a 3D image is with two separate captures.
I am posting both the anaglyph and free view versions (parallel and cross eyed view) for each image.
My thread in the Main Photography Discussion, 3D - How a Stereo Image Pair Can Be Displayed, got very little response. There may be more interest in 3D here in the Photo Gallery.
The question for those who are interested, which version do you prefer? Please mention if you don't have anaglyph glasses and then indicate whether you prefer parallel or cross eyed.
Apr 4, 2019 10:07:00 #
A little simpler but still a significant effort without two images.
Apr 4, 2019 10:10:05 #
Complex.
Apr 4, 2019 15:36:05 #
The objection has been raised about the possibility that colors are compromised in a red/cyan anaglyph.
As the image below shows, a deep or saturated red (the Jeep Cherokee) may not be rendered faithfully in the anaglyph. Nevertheless, all of the other colors are rendered faithfully. They are not compromised.
This was also covered in another post.
The fourth image, since it is B&W, has no such problem.
As the image below shows, a deep or saturated red (the Jeep Cherokee) may not be rendered faithfully in the anaglyph. Nevertheless, all of the other colors are rendered faithfully. They are not compromised.
This was also covered in another post.
The fourth image, since it is B&W, has no such problem.
Apr 4, 2019 16:22:49 #
Here is another case where red paint does not come across correctly in the anaglyph.
Apr 5, 2019 09:38:10 #
Where there is no significant amount of red in the scene, the anaglyph version does not cause any apparent color degradation.
Apr 6, 2019 13:26:22 #
selmslie wrote:
You will need a pair of anaglyph glasses to view t... (show quote)
From start to finish a well-produced and displayed series.
Save for the white house with red porch roof, allother images are detail-dense and the the anaglyphs understandably suffer a bit in the resolution department due to crosstalk/ghosting.
The 3D image pairs are well paired and presented and are easily viewed by both viewing techniques when both are available. These 3D pairs are, IMO, far more satisfying from the perspectives of both resolution and color rendition.
You wisely kept the potential depth of all images within the functional distance within which horizontal parallax remains discernible.
Apr 6, 2019 14:25:32 #
Uuglypher wrote:
From start to finish a well-produced and displayed... (show quote)
Thank you.
In this and in 3D - How a Stereo Image Pair Can Be Displayed one of my goals was to get an idea of how many people prefer either anaglyph or free viewing. Since we don't have to agree we can all address both preferences if they are displayed both ways.
My other objective was to show how easy it is to capture a pair of images in the first place. The benefit to that approach is that all of the geometric work needed to present the 3D effect is automatic - the subsequent presentations are relatively trivial.
What can be extremely difficult and time consuming is the process of trying to convert a 2D image to 3D. SoHillGuy has provided some excellent examples along with a link that describes how it needs to be done:
SoHillGuy wrote:
Dave, I am referring you to a site that explains how to make 2D photos into 3D in two different methods.
Good luck and let me know how you're doing or posts some of your work here on UHH.
https://blog.spoongraphics.co.uk/tutorials/how-to-create-anaglyph-3d-images-that-really-work
Dave, I am referring you to a site that explains how to make 2D photos into 3D in two different methods.
Good luck and let me know how you're doing or posts some of your work here on UHH.
https://blog.spoongraphics.co.uk/tutorials/how-to-create-anaglyph-3d-images-that-really-work
My response was:
That's a very clear description of the process.
The procedure uses horizontal displacement of specific portions of the image isolated using some form of depth map. It can be quite labor intensive and time consuming but the result will be very close to what you get by capturing two separate images in the first place.
What it does not do is to distort the entire image without regard for a depth map. That will always produce a false impression of 3D which is easy to expose by combining the left and right images into an anaglyph.
I look forward to posting future examples as both anaglyph and cross eyed view. Using SereoPhoto Maker, it's only two clicks from anaglyph to cross eyed.
I urge anyone who would like to post either style of 3D to also show the other. That way there can no longer be any arguments about whether the 3D effect is real or false.
Apr 6, 2019 18:43:38 #
Uuglypher wrote:
... and the the anaglyphs understandably suffer a bit in the resolution department due to crosstalk. ....
That’s actually a bit disingenuous (in other words, a cheap shot) since you can’t actually see the small 3D images in parallel or cross eyed view clearly enough to observe that level of detail.
Apr 6, 2019 19:47:48 #
selmslie wrote:
That’s actually a bit disingenuous (in other words, a cheap shot) since you can’t actually see the small 3D images in parallel or cross eyed view clearly enough to observe that level of detail.
Not intentionally so; when ghosting is obvious through such a level of detail as was discernible, it has to be too much! I’m sure that if I spent more time with anaglyphs, I’d learn to disregard it. Kind of like broccoli and Brussels sprouts. I long ago gave up any pretense of trying to get used to them.
Apr 6, 2019 20:18:32 #
Uuglypher wrote:
Not intentionally so; when ghosting is obvious through such a level of detail as was discernible, it has to be too much! I’m sure that if I spent more time with anaglyphs, I’d learn to disregard it. Kind of like broccoli and Brussels sprouts. I long ago gave up any pretense of trying to get used to them.
I will admit that, like many others, I can't be bothered viewing alleged 3D images via cross eyed view if anaglyph shows that they are not really 3D.
Of course, I have the advantage of not attempting 2D to 3D conversions. I always use two viewpoints, displaced horizontally. That can't fail to produce a satisfactory 3D image by one method (anaglyph) or the other (cross eyed) unless I screw up, in which case I don't bother posting it.
The problem is with the 2D to 3D conversions. The anaglyph presentation clearly shows whether the conversion is real or false. If the anaglyph works then the cross eyed view is just another way to display it.
What I suggest is that, as I have, you present your 3D both ways - as cross eyed free view and anaglyph. That way both camps have an opportunity to judge whether the 3D effect is legitimate.
If you cannot accept this challenge then you are conceding that you can't to a 2D to 3D conversion by your methods.
Apr 6, 2019 21:40:15 #
selmslie wrote:
I will admit that, like many others, I can't be bo... (show quote)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you cannot look view an image pair and determine if the yielded 3D effect is to be valued, then the problem is yours, not mine. If you have to rely on the ability of a given image pair to translate as an anaglyph - as you clearly must - then you clearly lack the foveational versatility possessed by most 3D pair viewers and should admit that you are in that stereopsis-limited population known as near-stereoblind. It is that group that holds the anaglyphs in great value, because were it not for anaglyphs, they (you) would have no means of experiencing a 3D effect of any sort.
My 3D conversions have long-since passed the tests of competent 3D image pair viewers who have no need to test an image pair to see if it could be rendered as an anaglyph.
Some of my conversions easily can be made into anaglyphs because their geometric transformations do happen to result in horizontal disparity displacements. Many others have diagonal and vertical displacements, as well as some horizontal ones, and render excellent 3D effects to competent image pair viewers.
I don’t mean to imply that competent pair viewers who prefer anaglyphs cannot be found; I just have not found any yet.
Apr 7, 2019 03:01:55 #
Uuglypher wrote:
... If you cannot look view an image pair and determine if the yielded 3D effect is to be valued, then the problem is yours, not mine. ....
I can see a 3D effect either way if the 2D to 3D conversion is executed correctly. With your attempts that rarely happens.
Some of your efforts, like this one and this one are such blatant failures that a an anaglyph is not needed. Many, like this one appear to partially work only if they are rotated 90 degrees to the left or right. Others like this one need the anaglyph to show why they fail.
When a conversion does not look right, making an anaglyph of the pair confirms my suspicions.
Only you would post the demand that, "the posted images are not to be downloaded, manipulated, or re-posted without my explicit permission." But unlike you, I have nothing to hide.
You can't blame the viewer. The problem is yours.
Now please stop hijacking my thread. Stop and post your opinions on your own thread.
Apr 7, 2019 15:11:10 #
To avoid leaving this thread with a bad taste, here is a shot of one of the huge oaks.
Some are reputed to be 800 years old.
Some are reputed to be 800 years old.
Apr 7, 2019 15:14:26 #
And another younger one where I didn't inadvertently cut off the top.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.