Stereo, anybody?

cosmicap · 04-09-2010, 12:12 AM

I have just put a couple of pics in an album for the first time. They are of an echidna in our back yard. Not great shots but I wonder if there is an interest out there in 3D?
The echidna is in both cross and parallel formats. I'd like to know how people get on with viewing onscreen. All comments and critique will be taken on board!

jct us101 · 04-09-2010, 01:55 AM

So the photos on the left are the 3D versions? That looks pretty neat, although I don't really see much of a difference other than the 3D photo not really having a visible depth of field. How do you do that anyways?

Arpe · 04-09-2010, 02:24 AM

Cool. I always go cross eyed to look at these. Love looking at them.

cosmicap · 04-09-2010, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by jct us101

So the photos on the left are the 3D versions? That looks pretty neat, although I don't really see much of a difference other than the 3D photo not really having a visible depth of field. How do you do that anyways?

Mmmm. All three pictures are 3d. Each picture is a pair, side by side of left eye and right eye view. They are designed to be viewed as a pair, either with a viewer (gizmo) or by so-called "free viewing" where the viewer (that's you) twists his or her brain and eyeballs and manages one way or another to get the effect of 3D by making the two images fuse into one. If the the picture seems "inside out", do the same thing to one of the other pairs. If it doesn't work for you, so be it. If it does work, I reckon the extra effort is worth it for detail that comes to life. Of course it can't make a dull photograph interesting and that is likely to be my downfall!

johnmflores · 04-09-2010, 07:15 AM

Cool. I had a friend that was big into this stuff back in the days of film.

The blurred foreground is interesting in the shots. In real life everything's in focus - you're eye's constantly scanning and bring things into focus. With your shot I found myself drifting to the foreground but not being able to really read it that well in 3d. I'd always been curious about the DOF effect in 3d and now I see it. Thanks.

I'd imagine that going with a smaller aperture and greater DOF will produce a shot that mimics reality more closely, but sometimes the shooting situation doesn't make that possible. This may be one situation where a smaller sensor actually helps.

HypnoCin67 · 04-09-2010, 11:40 AM

Wow, that is a really strange effect--I had a hard time holding the crossed-eyes long enough to really see it in 3-D, sadly. But for a fraction of a second at a time, I could see the 3-D-ness of the Echidna. . .

cosmicap · 04-09-2010, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

The blurred foreground is interesting in the shots. In real life everything's in focus - you're eye's constantly scanning and bring things into focus. With your shot I found myself drifting to the foreground but not being able to really read it that well in 3d. I'd always been curious about the DOF effect in 3d and now I see it. Thanks.

I'd imagine that going with a smaller aperture and greater DOF will produce a shot that mimics reality more closely, but sometimes the shooting situation doesn't make that possible. This may be one situation where a smaller sensor actually helps.

Absolutely agree about focus. I put these pictures up hurriedly to demonstrate a point to a correspondent in another forum. It was not a well chosen photo in many regards. DOF: I believe that this is an inherent problem with beamsplitters such as the Pentax Stereo Attachment: it craves a large aperture, and if you give it a small one the vertical shadow becomes so pronounced that it masks too much of the picture. In this instance I was lying flat on the ground with my elbows as bipod so I could not avoid the extreme foreground. I had a shy and nervous subject so I was limited in manoevering to get a clearer shot. All in all a photo that does not work real well in 3D! My apologies. This is precisely the situation where a twin camera rig with electronic shutter control for simultaneous exposures would work best. I don't have one.
I hope I'm not putting anyone off playing with 3D. Its great fun and when properly executed literally provides a whole new dimension to photography. Some of my most satisfying stereo photos have been taken in the "Cha cha" method: taken two photos in quick succession, shifting one's weight from left foot to right. So simple. Limited to static subjects: breezes that disturb leaves, cloud movement etc all spoil the stereo effect.

johnmflores · 04-09-2010, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by cosmicap

Absolutely agree about focus. I put these pictures up hurriedly to demonstrate a point to a correspondent in another forum. It was not a well chosen photo in many regards. DOF: I believe that this is an inherent problem with beamsplitters such as the Pentax Stereo Attachment: it craves a large aperture, and if you give it a small one the vertical shadow becomes so pronounced that it masks too much of the picture. In this instance I was lying flat on the ground with my elbows as bipod so I could not avoid the extreme foreground. I had a shy and nervous subject so I was limited in manoevering to get a clearer shot. All in all a photo that does not work real well in 3D! My apologies. This is precisely the situation where a twin camera rig with electronic shutter control for simultaneous exposures would work best. I don't have one.
I hope I'm not putting anyone off playing with 3D. Its great fun and when properly executed literally provides a whole new dimension to photography. Some of my most satisfying stereo photos have been taken in the "Cha cha" method: taken two photos in quick succession, shifting one's weight from left foot to right. So simple. Limited to static subjects: breezes that disturb leaves, cloud movement etc all spoil the stereo effect.

No need to apologize for the shot - I appreciate 3d and I learned something from it.

Never heard of "cha cha" before - great lingo!

I had thought about the Pentax beam splitter myself, but you bring up some good points about its limitations, and the OOF 3D effect isn't as interesting as I had hoped it might be. There may be applications where it can be used to good effect though. And maybe the K-x and it's high ISO abilities may be a good match for natural light/small aperture shots.

**rparmar** · 04-13-2010, 07:23 PM

I can't make those fuse, but now that I've tried this page is unreadable. So I hope I have no typos!

One thing I would suggest is to include the shots in the thread. I may be slow tonight, but it took me some time to realise where they were.

And that is a cool critter. No matter how many dimensions it has.

cosmicap · 04-13-2010, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

One thing I would suggest is to include the shots in the thread. I may be slow tonight, but it took me some time to realise where they were.

And that is a cool critter. No matter how many dimensions it has.

Thank you for the advice and your interest. In future I will add the pics to the post. I will also try and get some better samples together in both Cross and Parallel formats with a brief description of how to view them. Some people find one method suits them better than the other.
I must admit when I put the post up I had hoped that there would be a flurry of activity as fellow stereoscopists "came out".
The echidna is a great liitle critter. Eats ants and not much else. Has to be one of the gentlest beasts in the Aussie bush.

04-09-2010, 12:12 AM	#1
cosmicap Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Horsham, VIC, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 108	Stereo, anybody? I have just put a couple of pics in an album for the first time. They are of an echidna in our back yard. Not great shots but I wonder if there is an interest out there in 3D? The echidna is in both cross and parallel formats. I'd like to know how people get on with viewing onscreen. All comments and critique will be taken on board!

04-09-2010, 11:40 AM	#6
HypnoCin67 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Portland, Maine Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 130	Funky! Wow, that is a really strange effect--I had a hard time holding the crossed-eyes long enough to really see it in 3-D, sadly. But for a fraction of a second at a time, I could see the 3-D-ness of the Echidna. . .

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
First test K-7 with Rode Stereo VideoMic	jogiba	Video Recording and Processing	29	08-13-2010 05:20 AM
Stereo Adapter	StanW	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	1	03-27-2010 11:36 PM
Stereo	StanW	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	6	01-09-2010 10:56 PM
Stereo Photography	J.Scott	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	15	10-12-2007 09:03 AM
K10D Stereo image adapter???	codiac2600	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	04-23-2007 11:55 AM

04-09-2010, 01:55 AM	#2
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	So the photos on the left are the 3D versions? That looks pretty neat, although I don't really see much of a difference other than the 3D photo not really having a visible depth of field. How do you do that anyways?

04-09-2010, 02:24 AM	#3
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,452	Cool. I always go cross eyed to look at these. Love looking at them.

04-09-2010, 05:52 AM	#4
cosmicap Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Horsham, VIC, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 108 Original Poster	Originally posted by jct us101 So the photos on the left are the 3D versions? That looks pretty neat, although I don't really see much of a difference other than the 3D photo not really having a visible depth of field. How do you do that anyways? Mmmm. All three pictures are 3d. Each picture is a pair, side by side of left eye and right eye view. They are designed to be viewed as a pair, either with a viewer (gizmo) or by so-called "free viewing" where the viewer (that's you) twists his or her brain and eyeballs and manages one way or another to get the effect of 3D by making the two images fuse into one. If the the picture seems "inside out", do the same thing to one of the other pairs. If it doesn't work for you, so be it. If it does work, I reckon the extra effort is worth it for detail that comes to life. Of course it can't make a dull photograph interesting and that is likely to be my downfall!

04-09-2010, 07:15 AM	#5
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Cool. I had a friend that was big into this stuff back in the days of film. The blurred foreground is interesting in the shots. In real life everything's in focus - you're eye's constantly scanning and bring things into focus. With your shot I found myself drifting to the foreground but not being able to really read it that well in 3d. I'd always been curious about the DOF effect in 3d and now I see it. Thanks. I'd imagine that going with a smaller aperture and greater DOF will produce a shot that mimics reality more closely, but sometimes the shooting situation doesn't make that possible. This may be one situation where a smaller sensor actually helps.

04-09-2010, 04:21 PM	#7
cosmicap Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Horsham, VIC, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 108 Original Poster	Originally posted by johnmflores The blurred foreground is interesting in the shots. In real life everything's in focus - you're eye's constantly scanning and bring things into focus. With your shot I found myself drifting to the foreground but not being able to really read it that well in 3d. I'd always been curious about the DOF effect in 3d and now I see it. Thanks. I'd imagine that going with a smaller aperture and greater DOF will produce a shot that mimics reality more closely, but sometimes the shooting situation doesn't make that possible. This may be one situation where a smaller sensor actually helps. Absolutely agree about focus. I put these pictures up hurriedly to demonstrate a point to a correspondent in another forum. It was not a well chosen photo in many regards. DOF: I believe that this is an inherent problem with beamsplitters such as the Pentax Stereo Attachment: it craves a large aperture, and if you give it a small one the vertical shadow becomes so pronounced that it masks too much of the picture. In this instance I was lying flat on the ground with my elbows as bipod so I could not avoid the extreme foreground. I had a shy and nervous subject so I was limited in manoevering to get a clearer shot. All in all a photo that does not work real well in 3D! My apologies. This is precisely the situation where a twin camera rig with electronic shutter control for simultaneous exposures would work best. I don't have one. I hope I'm not putting anyone off playing with 3D. Its great fun and when properly executed literally provides a whole new dimension to photography. Some of my most satisfying stereo photos have been taken in the "Cha cha" method: taken two photos in quick succession, shifting one's weight from left foot to right. So simple. Limited to static subjects: breezes that disturb leaves, cloud movement etc all spoil the stereo effect.

04-09-2010, 04:36 PM	#8
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by cosmicap Absolutely agree about focus. I put these pictures up hurriedly to demonstrate a point to a correspondent in another forum. It was not a well chosen photo in many regards. DOF: I believe that this is an inherent problem with beamsplitters such as the Pentax Stereo Attachment: it craves a large aperture, and if you give it a small one the vertical shadow becomes so pronounced that it masks too much of the picture. In this instance I was lying flat on the ground with my elbows as bipod so I could not avoid the extreme foreground. I had a shy and nervous subject so I was limited in manoevering to get a clearer shot. All in all a photo that does not work real well in 3D! My apologies. This is precisely the situation where a twin camera rig with electronic shutter control for simultaneous exposures would work best. I don't have one. I hope I'm not putting anyone off playing with 3D. Its great fun and when properly executed literally provides a whole new dimension to photography. Some of my most satisfying stereo photos have been taken in the "Cha cha" method: taken two photos in quick succession, shifting one's weight from left foot to right. So simple. Limited to static subjects: breezes that disturb leaves, cloud movement etc all spoil the stereo effect. No need to apologize for the shot - I appreciate 3d and I learned something from it. Never heard of "cha cha" before - great lingo! I had thought about the Pentax beam splitter myself, but you bring up some good points about its limitations, and the OOF 3D effect isn't as interesting as I had hoped it might be. There may be applications where it can be used to good effect though. And maybe the K-x and it's high ISO abilities may be a good match for natural light/small aperture shots.

04-13-2010, 07:23 PM	#9
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	I can't make those fuse, but now that I've tried this page is unreadable. So I hope I have no typos! One thing I would suggest is to include the shots in the thread. I may be slow tonight, but it took me some time to realise where they were. And that is a cool critter. No matter how many dimensions it has.

04-13-2010, 08:08 PM	#10
cosmicap Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Horsham, VIC, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 108 Original Poster	Originally posted by rparmar One thing I would suggest is to include the shots in the thread. I may be slow tonight, but it took me some time to realise where they were. And that is a cool critter. No matter how many dimensions it has. Thank you for the advice and your interest. In future I will add the pics to the post. I will also try and get some better samples together in both Cross and Parallel formats with a brief description of how to view them. Some people find one method suits them better than the other. I must admit when I put the post up I had hoped that there would be a flurry of activity as fellow stereoscopists "came out". The echidna is a great liitle critter. Eats ants and not much else. Has to be one of the gentlest beasts in the Aussie bush.