Short survey about 3D anaglyph photo.
Although you can produce something that looks like 3D from a single image, it takes a lot of knowledge and effort and it's still not likely to look right unless you are very selective in picking out a subject that is very simple.
Take a look at
3D Test. The 3D image in the first post was created from two separate images, a left and right eye view taken a few inches apart.
Now look at the 2D-3D conversion using imgonline done from only the left eye view:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-521797-1.html#8870979 Lines that should be straight are wavy and the bed of juniper is not rendered correctly.
I deliberately picked that subject to illustrate the shortcomings of 2D to 3D conversion.
MMC
Loc: Brooklyn NY
Thanks for your reply. Without anaglyph glasses you can not see 3D effect of 3D anaglyph picture. Few month ago when I did not have such glasses I have found that I had red and cyan filters for my small flashlight and I tried to use them to see 3D anaglyph photos. I was amazed and googled how can I do such pictures and bought on eBay anaglyph glasses. Now I have new fun.There are different ways to receive 3D effect and some of them are very simple. Do not be afraid.
jaymatt wrote:
1. no
2. no
3. no
4. yes
As a side note, when I see a photo entry tagged as 3-D, I don’t even bother to look.
MMC
Loc: Brooklyn NY
Thank you for your reply. I tried to see pictures for cross eyed method but it does not work for me and I am not sure that it would not hurt my weak eyes.
dlmorris wrote:
Yes on 1
Yes on 2
No on 3
Yes on 4.
Though I have taken 3D photos that you had to look at cross eyed to see. Gives you a head ache after looking at a few, but it does work.
1) yes, 2) yes, 3) no, 4) no.
I said 'no' for 3) because I've never tried making one so I don't know if there are issues I haven't thought of, but it seems almost trivial -- take two pictures side by side, give each a color cast that correlates to the glasses' lens colors, then merge them into one image. Is it harder than that?
I have BTW enjoyed seeing your 3D photo posts. Thanks.
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Don’t know but it looks cool.
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
and
4. Yes!
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No clue
Sounds as if this is another interesting branch on the photography tree—as is infrared; interesting,but not for everyone. Hold your flag high sir, and keep creating interest.
aflundi wrote:
... it seems almost trivial -- take two pictures side by side, give each a color cast that correlates to the glasses' lens colors, then merge them into one image. Is it harder than that? ....
The only hard part is getting them equally leveled and aligned when you overlap them so that the image doesn't come out too far from the surface of the display.
The rest of it is, as you say, almost trivial.
MMC
Loc: Brooklyn NY
3D photo from 2 shots much better but from 1 shot not so bad and acceptable for beginning.
selmslie wrote:
Although you can produce something that looks like 3D from a single image, it takes a lot of knowledge and effort and it's still not likely to look right unless you are very selective in picking out a subject that is very simple.
Take a look at
3D Test. The 3D image in the first post was created from two separate images, a left and right eye view taken a few inches apart.
Now look at the 2D-3D conversion using imgonline done from only the left eye view:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-521797-1.html#8870979 Lines that should be straight are wavy and the bed of juniper is not rendered correctly.
I deliberately picked that subject to illustrate the shortcomings of 2D to 3D conversion.
Although you can produce something that looks like... (
show quote)
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.