Why hasn't it make a comeback? Is it because zoomers are unable to look at a single picture for more than a few seconds?
>>108194292I can’t see this shit, is there a program to decode these kinds of images?t. one-eyed pirate
>>108194342It's the it's fine in a fire dog. I win first.
>>108194342https://piellardj.github.io/stereogram-solver/
>>108194354I mean I could tell this one was the dog from the familiar patterns, but in general it’s not as trivial.>>108194356Neat.
>>108194385We are going back to an oral society because zoomers are unable to read and write. Of course, their ability to talk and listen isn't that great, either.Also, fuck that. I want neither primitivism nor techbro culture, I want widespread technical capabilities and understanding.
>>108194292I just wish people made more crosseye ones, as those you can manually force in a second regardless of the image size.
holy fuck I just can't do it right now my eyes are just so fucking dry I keep having to blink. I need a technology where I can cross my eyes
>>108194292i can see the thing if i cross my eyes, but i heard you are not supposed to cross your eyes and look behind it somehow.
I have a lazy eye so these things don't work for me at all.
>>108194342One-eyed pirates or wall-eyed people are excluded from posting here. Like under-18, using VPN, Adblock, Tor and other stuff. Go away, we don't want imperfections in our gene pool.
>>108194516With most of these you need to do the green focus, if you do cross eye focus you will see an inverted 3D image (as it you were looking at a relief from behind it), which will look garbled
>>108194611thanks anon
>>108194500for cross-eyed ones, try holding your finger out in front of you, then bring your finger closer while focusing on the finger until you notice the stereogram becoming clear, then look at the stereogramop's isn't a cross-eyed one however, it's a wall-eyed version. i like to just pretend to look at something off in the distance, though if you need help doing it you could try getting your face close to the screen, relax your eyes so you aren't trying to focus on the screen, then slowly move away while resisting the urge to focus on the screen. only once you notice depth cues can you focus on the screen
>>108194611it's probably easier to tell what's happening by showing the point where the eye's are aiming. note that the image can still appear in focus as the eyes focus independently from where they're "looking"
>>108194292https://managore.itch.io/stereogram
>>108194292>Why hasn't it make a comeback?To do that it'd need to be popular. It made an impression, like late 80s, early 90's. But quickly faded into obscurity...>s it because zoomers are unable to look at a single picture for more than a few seconds?Unlikely to help, but once you've some "muscle memory" on focal depth, you *should* be able to resolve 'em near instant... I phear the issue is most people struggle achieving that initial focal disparity....>>108194416>I want widespread technical capabilities and understanding.Firt you'll need to convince the unwashed masses that there is value in understanding how something works. They don't care how the toaster works, they put bread in and toast comes out - that's what matters. They are forever destined to only ever use their toaster to heat bread... They can never hope to envision another use...
>>108194292zoomers can't relax their eye muscles due to the never-ending stimulus their eyes received since development. they also have a problem with static images in general.
>>108195598I've a problem with that f'kin chessboard layout...But I'm not a zoomer...
Prolly be vastly unpopular - but what if the entire computer interface was sterogram'd...Usable interface with builtin anti-normie filter, or unuasable garbage?
>>108195741kekdo you have the goatse one anon?
>>108194356Here anon, I used AI to animate your dolphin.
>>108195812By dolphin, you meant shark, right?
>>108195805Nah, it's just random image I've saved years ago.
>>108195805>do you have the goatse one anon?Make one?It's not that hard, anon. We have the technology...
>>108195848When AI says that it's a dolphin, it's a dolphin.After all, every picture like that shows a dolphin (according to Maximum Likelihood).
the reason why this shit never caught on is because it uses the retarded ass wall-eyed method instead of the easy and natural cross-eyed method
>>108196757>easy and natural cross-eyed methodt.
>>108195741>>10819429215 years on since i first learned of autostereograms and i still can't make the hidden image pop
>>108197649I learned that more than 30 years ago.You could try staring at pegboards or something similar. The trick is to move to focus both eyes on different structures that look (nearly) identical.
>>108195598This one is weird. My brain alternates every few seconds between which way the rooks are tilting. I never get the 3D effect here.>>108194292This one works as intended.
>>108194292the effect was never strong enough for me to make out anything beyond smooth blobby shapes
>>108195741merchant?>>108195812the motion helps it pop
>>108197862>My brain alternates every few seconds between which way the rooks are tiltingMine spazzez out on the second row pawns... Hits me right inna 'tisms....
>>108195598is this one supposed to work like the rest? I can see the others but I can't see it.the rest look like obvious magic eyes but this just looks like a render
>>108197862>>108198890i think it's easy, just squint your eyes until you shift one figure so far that it aligns perfectly with the next one and in locks in for me and the 3D image persists without additional effort.
>>108194678>>108194611One of my eyes is a lot weaker than the other and my brain doesn't interpret signals from that eye as strongly. Eye doctor told me that even if I got laser surgery my brain has already adapted to the bad eye and I would probably never see well from it. Is that why I've never in my life gotten one of these things to work?
>>108199024It means you aren't the chosen one.
>>108194455THISCrossing your eyes arbitrarily far is a natural movement, and people who struggle can always focus on their finger as a guide.Diverging your eyes beyond straight, hell, even focusing beyond something opaque, is not. If you struggle you're shit outta luck.
>>108198890no, it's a crosseyed one.https://www.hidden-3d.com/index.php?id=gallery&pk=-267&comment_show=1#:~:text=Chess%20(Cross%2Deyed)%20by,the%20screen%2C%20not%20through%20it.
>>108197862Your supposed to crosseye the chess one.
>>108195598Fuck you now I can't stop seeing the dirt on my glasses
What the fuck no matter which technique I use it always ends up caving in instead of popping out
>>108194586Ok why are you brown then?
>>108199600It only works for me if I put my face right up to the screen and slowly back away.Fucking hate that most of them are parallel view instead of cross eye
>>108194292More appealing in book form I guess, when you have a screen might as well look at something more stimulating.I personally find proper crosseye 3D much more appealing. Full 3D pictures instead of simple illustrations, even 3D video long before VR headsets became available.Insane depth on this one, best I've seen that isn't a true crosseye 3D photo.
>>108199024idk what strong/weak means in this contextthese images require you to be able to see stereoscopic depth cues. idk how one could possibly explain what that looks like to someone who doesn't have it (like if they only have ever had one working eye), but using two eyes gives you a sense of how far away objects are from one another in a 3d scene like real life, as each eye gets a slightly different perspective of the scene.stereoscopic images like op's exploits this by having two similar-but-not-identical images overlaid with itself, such that if your eyes aren't focuses on it directly, each eye can be positioned such that it's looking at those two different overlaid patterns, and the diffferences in the patterns gives you the same effect as perspective changes looking at real objects, basically you can see a "depth shape" in the image, like some parts appear closer/further away
>>108195741I can relax my eyes and make the image double and all of it and the hidden image still doesn't appear to me. I don't get it.
>>108198512>merchant?y
>>108200256This one is great
>>108194292If you can do this all the time you will find real secret of life.
>>108194292
>>108200256that's cool as fuck
>>108194292oh these are fun
>>108201590Oh, a Sinfest one.
>>108194292I could always see "something" in a second because I can cross my eyes on demand, but I could not for the fucking life of me ever tell what I was looking at unless it was a really simple shape.>>108194342
>>108201941probably because you're crossing your eyes for images that aren't cross-eyed. like op's one isn't for cross-eyed viewing, if you view it like that the depth becomes inverted which makes it much harder to tell what's going on
>>108194354Congrats.
>>108195741...Is that Bulbasaur?
>>108199175...Is that an Oddish?
>>108202099yeah
>>108199600They're supposed to cave in! ...Right?
>>108202093yeah
>>108201618Oh, you.
>>108202093It's the instigator of all of America's wars of the 20th and 21st centuries.
>>108194455The weird thing is I've always been able to see these things within like a second. I have some of the books.But ones like >>108195598 are shit and hurt my eyes.
>>108201590
>>108202132cross-eye ones are easier to do but they're more taxing on the eyes as it's basically like focusing on something really close to your face
>>108202159>cross-eye ones are easier to domy eyes apparently work the opposite way.
>>108202132you're supposed to do the latter crosseyed kind by putting your finger near the screen, focus on the finger, then draw the finger towards your face while focusing on the finger. with the chess one, let's say you have the image sized at like a 17" screen size at arm's length on your screen, ok so you put your finger between two rooks and bring your finger until it's covering up a rook. this is the area where you start working with it. it will be like 6" from your face or something. These instructions are approximate. As someone else said, the crosseyed kind are much easier.
>>108202132>>108202159-- like look at the chess one and move your finger in front of you until the two fingers become one (while keeping focus on the stereogram); that's where your eyes are converging
>>108202187yeah, but they do that with crosseyed and spread eyed.
>>108202203no, you can't. if you're viewing it wall-eyed, then your eyes are converging well beyond the screen, so your finger will appear doubled from your eyes to the screen, and unless you're viewing it really close, you probably won't be able to reach far enough to where the finger converges into onesee: >>108194678
>>108202185>>108202187I got it to work if I made the image way smaller.But yeah I've always been able to do the look-behind view on demand somehow.
>>108201941the magic eye books actually explain it in depth, when you see something you need to move around until it "clicks"
>>108202246arigatou, sensei
>>108202059Well apparently I can't really do it properly at all. Artificial difficulty.Looks like I'm not the only one who can do it instantly but wrong, too.
>>108202281nta but you need to find a pattern and look for the area where it repeats, then try to cross one way or another until they match (in the books they come with two squares on top as a guide)
>>108194292I have a question! So all these ones are made such that you have to look off to the distance with the image on front of you. But why don't they do it in that style where you cross your eyes? Like there's 3D porn in that style where its two images and you cross your eyes and the middle is 3D. Does that not work for this? It's completely different?
>>108202281it's really much easier to do the one anon is calling "wall" type (spread eyes) with a book, because you can focus on something on a wall, like a face in a photo, and then adjust the distance of the book vs that. you kind of try to see the edge of the book's image.The battle is that of getting your brain to decide to focus incorrectly for the convergence of the eyes. or, correctly for the magic eye sird thing. true for both kinds.
>>108202294They're different, it gives it depth, the crosseye approach brings the image out instead of in if that makes any sense, at least that's how I perceive it
best explanation I could find
>>108202340sure, that scan should be functional on your screen, if it's big enough. it would work at phone size, but it's hard.One major issue is a lot of people have undiagnosed base up/down prescription needs.
>>108194292Screw that gimmicky eye thing, why didn't 3D displays make a comeback? They tried to push that shit for TVs, but there was nearly no content and you had the problem of having it be viewable by many people in the room so multiple viewing angle. For computers you already had all 3D games as content (plus a lot of fucking porn) and you only had to make sure it worked for one user whose head was perfectly aligned with the center of the screen. They could have made it work with lenticular stuff, if they wanted and if they kept advancing the tech, it'd be bretty good by now.
>>108202397resolution.
>>108202294You are talking about stereograms, which use two images. The OP one is called autostereogram, since it uses only one image.In theory, you can make stereograms for both the wall-eye and the cross-eye method. It's just that the direction of the depth changes, so you have to swap the two images.The problem with making wall-eye stereograms is that there is a pretty hard limit on the physical image size, namely the distance between your eyes. Going further than that requires actually diverging your eyes beyond parallel, which is very difficult. Autostereograms use repeating abstract shapes, so they get around this limitation.I think most people find the wall-eye method easier. I personally can't do the cross-eye one at all, whenever I actually try to focus on the image my eyes uncross. That's why most autostereograms are made for the wall-eye method.For wall-eye 3D porn you would want to be very close to a small high-resolution screen, so a modern phone would probably be the best option.
Man I could not understand these as a kid even though I cross eyed all the time. I love these little fuckers
Stereograms were always just a novelty, but they were a novelty I always really enjoyed because I can make my left eye relax and go wall-eyed at will, so I can see all stereograms pretty much instantly and effortlessly. Used to use that ability as a kid to daydream while getting lectured too; easy to stop taking the lecturer seriously when my vision has copied their head into two.For everyone else I know it took them forever to see the stereographic image, including my parents.
>>108202246Thanks, doc.
Because it's easier to just look at SBS images.
I wonder if wearing glasses makes it easier or harderShouldn't affect it at all because the glasses are designed to make up for the deficiencies of your eye lens
>>108202964>Because it's easier to just look at SBS images.No it's not.
>>108203059Try zooming out or moving away from your monitor a bit.
>>1082030591. Move away from the screen.2. Cross your eyes until you see 4 images. There will be 2 copies.3. Slowly focus your eyes or move closer to the screen until the right image of the left copy merges with the left image of the right copy.
>>108203212>requiring moving>easier
>>108202964If you can see images both ways (3D floating and the 3D inside) you have to use the inside technique to watch the sbs sutff, the problem is that as things are more far away everything looks tiny, also you cant look around too much, because maintaining the focus is hard.for sbs stuff get a meta quest (I know they are not cheap) but is the best 3D experience you can buy cheap and ease to use. I had 3D tvs, monitors, used google cardboard, gear vr and finally could get my Quest and BOI its awesome...
>>108199024>One of my eyes is a lot weaker than the other and my brain doesn't interpret signals from that eye as strongly.Probably amblyopia. Mine was caught relatively early because I was born severely farsighted. But I still see a "warmer" color temperature and have a minor loss of contrast out of that eye decades after treatment. And your ophthalmologist is right; it's a brain issue not an eye issue (though shitty vision is often the catalyst). Be glad you still have some vision in that eye at all.And yes, I've always had issues with these as well. That could be more to do with the powerful corrective lenses I have to wear.
>>108195812even though it's a shark that's pretty cool anon, thank you
>>108202246This is the only one I don't get. I can see multiple layers but I don't get what it is.
>>108206618it's a wall-eyed one, and you have to be careful not to overlap it twice, since the pattern is pretty small
>>108206618really anon? not even from contextual replies?
>>108206647Okay, I was overlapping it twice. Now I only see one floating layer, but it still doesn't look like anything.
>>108206653i don't think he recognises the meme>>108206844try looking up "thanks doc"
I always check the filename for .gifsI am paranoid because it has happened before
>>108194611focusing your eyes on a spot about an arm's length in front of you is usually how far you need to cross your eyes.
>>108201590hail hortler
Any recommendations for tools to generate these imagse? Last I checked, there were many to chose from.
>>108195812Oh jesus fuck. I was watching this shark for a bit and now after I've looked away I am hyper aware of my nose in my vision. It feels like my right eye is all wonky. Shit.
>>108202294I remember seeing crosseye ones but they're rare.It could be as simple as the original inventor chose straight eye, that became popular with the magic eye books, and everyone copied that style from then on.For side by side 3D images/video, you basically have to use cross eye because there's no situation in nature where you diverge your eyes beyond infinity. I prefer crosseye but it is what it is.
