Posts for: theoldman
Apr 18, 2019 15:07:42 #
SoHillGuy,
Here are the lake photos, hand held about 8 to 10 inch base. I added a shot of Mexican Hat in Utah taken a couple of years ago with my Fuji W1 fixed base 3D camera.
Dave
Here are the lake photos, hand held about 8 to 10 inch base. I added a shot of Mexican Hat in Utah taken a couple of years ago with my Fuji W1 fixed base 3D camera.
Dave
Apr 18, 2019 12:11:55 #
If you will excuse my humor, I think this is an "unfair" promotion of anaglyph to a guy who prefers free viewing!! :) But I managed to reach to my side table for the glasses. :) Exceptionally realistic transformation! And that's a swell teal suit.
Out of personal curiosity, I recall an active group of 3D photographers in Puyallup (I live in Lacey) years ago. Are you one of that group?
Dave
Out of personal curiosity, I recall an active group of 3D photographers in Puyallup (I live in Lacey) years ago. Are you one of that group?
Dave
Apr 8, 2019 20:14:34 #
That question is a bit like "Where is a good place to eat?" It depends largely on your taste and location.
My grandfather homesteaded in Washington and I have lived here many years. I might help, but I can't begin unless I know your tastes.
Suppose you want images of vast deep canyons with sheer cliffs, and waterfalls with spring flowers in abundance.....like Paloose Falls. Or perhaps alpine meadows at the foot of a volcano, or 100's of vintage automobiles in one of America's largest collections, or abandoned school houses, or rolling hills of wheat behind a pioneer home, or a fishing village, elk, abundant waterfowl, a ferry approaching a city, or a remote island, a town out of Norman Rockwell's pages.....the possibilities are endless.
What are your tastes and where will you be?
Dave
My grandfather homesteaded in Washington and I have lived here many years. I might help, but I can't begin unless I know your tastes.
Suppose you want images of vast deep canyons with sheer cliffs, and waterfalls with spring flowers in abundance.....like Paloose Falls. Or perhaps alpine meadows at the foot of a volcano, or 100's of vintage automobiles in one of America's largest collections, or abandoned school houses, or rolling hills of wheat behind a pioneer home, or a fishing village, elk, abundant waterfowl, a ferry approaching a city, or a remote island, a town out of Norman Rockwell's pages.....the possibilities are endless.
What are your tastes and where will you be?
Dave
Apr 5, 2019 19:39:56 #
This is the M4A1 Sherman Tank displayed at Camp Blanding, Florida, photographed in February 2010 using the Fuji W1 3D twin lens camera, and post processed in the free Stereo Photo Maker.
About 40,000 M4 Shermans were produced between 1941 and 1945. They used a crew of 5, had a top speed of 24 mph and weighed 35 tons. The 76mm main gun could fire a shell that would pierce 4 inches of armor.
Cross eyed and red blue anaglyph formats are offered. If you need advice on clear full color cross eyed free viewing, search for my post titled "Trying 3D Stereo." If you have red blue anaglyph glasses at hand, choose the viewing method you prefer.
Dave
About 40,000 M4 Shermans were produced between 1941 and 1945. They used a crew of 5, had a top speed of 24 mph and weighed 35 tons. The 76mm main gun could fire a shell that would pierce 4 inches of armor.
Cross eyed and red blue anaglyph formats are offered. If you need advice on clear full color cross eyed free viewing, search for my post titled "Trying 3D Stereo." If you have red blue anaglyph glasses at hand, choose the viewing method you prefer.
Dave
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 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 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 3, 2019 14:28:39 #
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
Exceptionally interesting 2D to 3D process in PS. Now I can see why you did not get artifacts from actually moving the subject / layers in the original. Now I wonder what I might do with a two shot 3D image manipulated using the technique.
Thanks so much for the tip!!!
Dave
Apr 3, 2019 12:28:21 #
SoHillGuy (Puyallup?)
OK, how is that done? I see that you have a subject that can be isolated and divided into separate elements (layers), and you can move them independently to establish a 3D effect. Is that the means? OR you have a more efficient way. OR.....?
Dave
OK, how is that done? I see that you have a subject that can be isolated and divided into separate elements (layers), and you can move them independently to establish a 3D effect. Is that the means? OR you have a more efficient way. OR.....?
Dave
Apr 1, 2019 14:35:04 #
It is hard not to snap interesting photos at Arches National Park. The arches are the most popular subjects, but spectacular formations abound. The red rocks and blue skies in November of 2017 when these were taken were hard to beat, and the Park was uncrowded.
You can view either of the images in each pair in 2D, or view in 3D if you wish in cross eyed free view. It is easiest to adjust image size, if you wish, if you download.
I'll see if I have other shots of the formations that are potentially worthy of posting.
Dave
You can view either of the images in each pair in 2D, or view in 3D if you wish in cross eyed free view. It is easiest to adjust image size, if you wish, if you download.
I'll see if I have other shots of the formations that are potentially worthy of posting.
Dave
Mar 31, 2019 21:04:00 #
I feel ungracious in not accepting your kind offer outright. But I have a method to my madness. The choice of free-view in cross eye format is deliberate, if perhaps ill informed or wrong headed.
I want a single image pair in accurate color to be viewable by anyone with a screen anywhere, in normal 2D format. Just like any other photo on the Forum. In short, universal access. The cross eyed format does that. And it offers 3D for those who wish.
I want to determine how they are received. So at least for now, those who wish to see my very modest efforts in 3D are stuck with the free-view cross eyed format.
Dave
I want a single image pair in accurate color to be viewable by anyone with a screen anywhere, in normal 2D format. Just like any other photo on the Forum. In short, universal access. The cross eyed format does that. And it offers 3D for those who wish.
I want to determine how they are received. So at least for now, those who wish to see my very modest efforts in 3D are stuck with the free-view cross eyed format.
Dave
Mar 31, 2019 15:43:35 #
PixelStan77 wrote:
Dave, Thanks for sharing. Nice images.Will put that place on my bucket list when I visit my son in Portland. Looks like it is worth the 2HR trip.
Of course it depends on your photographic interests, but if they tend toward spectacular landscapes, snowcapped volcanoes, Native Americans fishing on rickety platforms over waterfalls, old stage stops, vintage school playgrounds, pioneer hotels, vintage villages, and unspoiled countryside, I think the 2 hours will be worth it. :)
PS, I don't work for the tourist board!! :) But it is a photographer's paradise and I can help you find some of the gems, and you can share the ones you locate as well.
Dave
Mar 31, 2019 15:10:53 #
The 1901 pioneer hydroelectric plant in the White River Canyon at the White River Falls provided north central Oregon with the first reliable source of electrical power ( June. 2018. 45.242031, -121.095261). It is long abandoned and offers one of many exceptional photographic opportunities in a spectacular area of America.
You can download and view either stereo pair as you would any photo, or use cross eyed freeview to see the canyon in 3D stereo. For those who wonder, the image was taken in two separate shots with a Panasonic FZ1000 and post processed in Stereo Photo Maker and Photoshop.
(When freeviewing on the Forum, I find using the + and - keys will nicely resize the downloaded image at least in Google and Windows)
Dave
You can download and view either stereo pair as you would any photo, or use cross eyed freeview to see the canyon in 3D stereo. For those who wonder, the image was taken in two separate shots with a Panasonic FZ1000 and post processed in Stereo Photo Maker and Photoshop.
(When freeviewing on the Forum, I find using the + and - keys will nicely resize the downloaded image at least in Google and Windows)
Dave
Mar 30, 2019 22:44:52 #
Fly cessna wrote:
Excelint😉
I definitely am not a pilot, but if I were, and had even a passing interest in 3D, I think I would be trying some aerial 3D....which you may already do.
I own a collection from a WWII B17 pilot. It includes bombing images taken in a series as the bombs were dropped. I have used them in a "Then and Now" video of one of the targets, which believe it or not, is most appreciated by modern locals at the bomb sites. But in the process i discovered (recognized) that a moving aircraft is a great set of eyes, with a very wide base. It is like eyes set many hundred feet apart.
I suppose Google Earth does the same thing with sequential satellite images of towns. But imagine Yosemite or Grand Canyon (probably off limits, darn)! But National Parks are not the only places with relief.
I have photographed the massive coulees in Eastern Washington in 3D from the ground, but I wonder how they would look in 3D done from the air. I can see myself chartering a plane and pilot and maybe hanging my camera off a unipod out the window (is that possible?), with remote attached, and snapping either bursts or a 4k video, from which I could extract frames.
Just a thought generated by your handle.
Dave
Mar 30, 2019 20:28:43 #
Eric02 wrote:
Is there any interest in taking 3D photos with film cameras?
There should be!! I have tons of slides taken with side by side mounted cameras using film. Viewing them in the proper viewer is a delight, and of course if you scan them you can do anything you like with them digitally. Personally, for quality of image and experience, I consider them hard to beat. They take you right into the scene in a way I seldom if ever experience on a computer screen.
Dave