selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I guess you came here to repeat yourself. I already answered you. See https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-549214-23.html#9347151 above.

But the fact remains that his process fails completely because he has the loft and right eye (or the parallel and crossed eye version) reversed. I had to correct that just to make the anaglyph versions come close to being viewable at all.

There is one recent image https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-548208-1.html#9302463 that also comes close. Its the first image of the two. That's where I discovered his left-right error.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I keep mentioning that his conversions do work and for some strange reason that I can't quite understand you keep trying to tell me "No they don't".

On second thoughts maybe it's not so strange. Your criticisms are based on your assertion that the conversions don't work, so acknowledging that they do work would involve back-pedalling on your part.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote along with the proof in the link I posted for you. So you don't have to search for it, see How nearly all 2D-3D conversions have failed

To continue to just “mention” that you think they work is starting to look like harassment.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Once again you refer to your assertion that the conversions don't work. Well, once again I (and others) can testify that they do. So once again we can say that you refuse to acknowledge conclusive facts. And once again you refer to anaglyphs as "proof" that Uuglypher's 3D conversions don't work.

I can remember you saying that if someone claimed the conversions work for them they must be lying (I think you said they would be lying for politeness sake or some such). Don't you think that's a strange belief to base your accusations on?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

In reference to having the left-right images reversed, the phrase I used was, "If he cannot see that, it's no wonder nobody else can honestly report that they do." Since you didn't see that statement it's obvious that you did not read the first post in my thread.

And since you have made no effort to look at the anaglyph versions of his images with anaglyph glasses, you are in no position to objectively state whether they prove or demonstrate anything at all.

You said earlier, "As for myself, I've seen it work occasionally." I asked. "Can you point to one that does? I will be happy to take another look at it." Apparently you have come up blank.

If you care so much about this topic that you find it necessary to hijack this thread, at least put in the effort to point to a successful 2D-3D conversion. If you can't, it's time for you to cease and desist.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I started posting on this thread when you made some troll-like comments about FYC and I felt the need to correct the misleading impression that you were giving. That led to you bringing up the subject of Uuglypher and his 3D conversions. Since then I've mentioned several times that I (and others) can report truthfully that the conversions do work, which is contrary to your repeated assertion that they don't and can't work. And you're also resolutely ignoring the fact that the anaglyphs are not proof that the conversions don't work. If the conversions were based solely on the effects produced by stereoscopic pairs you would at least have some sort of a point, but they're not. I'm willing to continue to remind you of these facts for as long as you continue to ignore them.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You are certainly not advancing the reputation of FYC by hijacking this thread with your own trolling.

Actually, that's the only effect of stereoscopic pairs that is relevant at all - whether they work.

It's the anaglyph conversion that proves that they don't work. But in some cases, that's not even necessary. Take a look at https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-481938-1.html#8099932 If that is not obvious then you don't understand the topic.

You have not responded to "Can you point to one that does? I will be happy to take another look at it." And you have not attempted to view the anaglyph evidence.

Once more, If you care so much about this topic that you find it necessary to hijack this thread, at least put in the effort to point to a successful 2D-3D conversion. If you can't, it's time for you to cease and desist.

Out of courtesy I have not yet taken the ultimate step to stop you from trolling on this thread. Please don't force my hand. You know I can have the last word. It's my thread.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I've learned some things from the analglyph discussion, but I still haven't managed to make one of the images look stereoscopic. Trolling or not, I appreciate the information.
Andy

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I hope that by now you will have seen Uuglyper's gracious apology and admission that he had the images reversed. The anaglyph evidence I sent him was what proved it. He acknowledges that, 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. ... thanks to Scotty for pointing out my mistake.

In fact, all of the image pairs in all of the 2D-3D conversions for the past two years have been reversed. The challenge has been that the small pairs are so hard to see that even he could not keep his eyes crossed long enough to discover the problem. Nevertheless, in all but a handful of the images, this did not matter since the anaglyph versions show that the 3D effect does not work properly either way you switch the left-right pairs.

I'm sure that he appreciates your vigorous defense of his work but now you have it from his own mouth.

Maybe you can now be as honest as he was in recognizing that what I have been saying does not constitute a "vendetta" but rather a technical disagreement over the facts,

juanbalv Loc: Los Angeles / Hawthorne

And so there! Now we can move on to more civility and fruitfulness. For my part, this was very interesting and enlightening. Although it took a bit of research to understand the subject matter, I thank you selmslie for your instruction and erudition. Thanks.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

So you're STILL implying that the anaglyphs are proof that the 3D conversions don't work?? I would agree with you but for the fact that it's just not true. And you're STILL claiming that the 3D conversions don't work, when myself and others have stated that they do? That is what I'm referring to when I accuse you of ignoring conclusive facts ("conclusive" as in "should bring the matter to an end").

I see Uuglypher agreeing that one of his posted pairs is reversed. And that is as far as it goes. It is not "all of the image pairs in all of the 2D-3D conversions for the past two years" as you are claiming. I should probably continue to refute your various misrepresentations of the truth and mis-interpretations of what's been posted but the fact is I'm sick of them.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If you are curious how 3D is supposed to look and can get your hands on a pair of red/cyan anaglyph glasses, take a look at the multitude of posts by SoHillGuy. He has done a lot of excellent work in this area. He has posted a lot more images than I have. One of his most outstanding images is the second one at 3D - Two Park Photos.

It has always struck me as a bit peculiar that anyone would take someone else's perfectly beautiful 2D image and offer to convert it to 3D. It's like looking at a pleasant meadow and saying, "Isn't that gorgeous. Why don't we build a shopping center here?"

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You simply cannot pass judgement on what the anaglyphs show or don't show until you actually view the anaglyphs of the conversions yourself using anaglyph glasses. You clearly have not read my post How nearly all 2D-3D conversions have failed and you don't have anaglyph glasses so you are not qualified to comment.

Uuglypher used his anaglyph glasses and understood exactly what I was saying or he would not have posted his mea culpa.

He was being coy about his "full disclosure". He knows very well that most of them failed for the same reason - the switched images. But some of them are not actually switched but there are plenty that failed for other reasons.

Look at each of the following links: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-433700-2.html#7293131, http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-435582-1.html#7387863, http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-441417-2.html#7430247 where the images are switched and the 3D fails disasterously. They can't even be remedied by un-switching them!

Now compare them to http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-435582-2.html#7392461 where they are not switched and the 3D illusion actually seems to work. His actual hit rate is still very low.

His problem remains that he could not separate the switched images from the un-switched images. With the anaglyph presentation, I can.

I thought you were done here. That would be a great relief to us all if you could keep your word. I hope it means that we will not hear from you on this topic in the future.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Surprise! Here is an inconvenient truth.

The image pair you can see in that link was not actually Uuglypher's creation. The reason that it works is because it was assembled from the second image in this post: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-435582-1.html#7390825 That image actually shows a pair of images that were captured from two viewpoints - a legitimate stereo pair. That's the only reason it works. Uuglypher did not actually create the 2D-3D conversion! No wonder it worked.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

OK, So the earth ain't flat and the moon isn't made of green cheese and there are those terrible rumors that Santa Claus does not live at the North Pole!

This entire thread reminds me of the old shaggy dog story from back in my high school days. It was about a Madison Avenue advertising executive who gives up his lucrative career to travel the word and discover the real "meaning of life" ! The story goes on for hours about all his trials and tribulation. At the end of the adventure, near death, emaciated and struggling for breath, our hero is found clinging to the rim of an ice encrusted crevice atop the Himalayas where a great sage, guru and philosopher is said to reside and harbors the truth and the ultimate wisdom about the real meaning of life. He peers into the abyss and there stands a little old man with a long white beard. He begs the little man for the answer. The old fellow has enormous black eyes and and barely audible and cracking voice and exclaims "LIFE IS A BLACK BUTTERFLY"! Our hero is taken aback and goes into a long diatribe on how he gave up everything and sacrificed all just to receive this seeming absurd and inane reply. The old fella looks up sheepishly and says, SO IT ISN'T!