Does anyone else here take pairs of images to synthesize depth in mages?This was taken from the Lummi Reservation looking east to Mt. Baker and the Sisters. Base was about 100 meters.
>>4517161Lawn ornament
>>4517162
>>4517161>Does anyone else here take pairs of images to synthesize depth in mages?Geez... I guess not.
>>4517161I've had a couple of goes at it, this was the first one without any big technical errors. Done using two sheets of film and the sideways movements on my monorail to give a 6cm base at a subject distance of around 10m
>>4518681Thank you! IT seems this is a cross pair? Do you use StereoPhotoMaker to combine the images?You're working with film??This is a Christmas ornament of the starship "Voyager". Also probably 6cm baseline, but about 30 cm away. Small version of parallel (original image is too large for /p/)...
>>4518715... and anaglyph
>>4518715Yes, I'm working with film. I'm using a large format camera with lateral movements to move the front and rear standards from left to right to get the two shots.They are a cross pair, I'm interested in seeing if I can replicate something like the stereophotos from the late 1800s early 1900s. My next plan is to use the rollfilm back I have for the camera to do some colour work with slide film. Then I can actually use a physical viewer.I just lined up the images in photoshop after scanning mostly because I just learned about stereophotomaker by reading your post.photo is another, older, one where I took one as I had space for two more sheets in my devtank. This didn't work as well as the near objects weren't separated well from those behind them.
>>4517161>>4517162>>4517163what did you use to take these photos?
>>4518900Nikon D5200, cha-cha.
>>4518816Well that's pretty cool that you're using film for stereo. Hard work, too.For baselines, a rule of thumb is that the baseline should be about 1/30th the distance to the object of interest. That varies depending on what you're trying to achieve. For instance, my baseline of 100m for the OP image was enough to get an idea of relative distances from hill to hill, but was not nearly enough to yield the shapes of the hills or of Mt. Baker itself, 60km away.P.S. here's an anaglyph of your dev tank and desktop from StereoPhotoMaker - hope you don't mind my doing that.
St. Michaels Kirche, Hamburg
>>4517161Holy shit, yes. I never thought I'd see a thread about this here. I've had quite an interest in this for a long time, though for most of that time I didn't have a nice camera so I just defaulted to doing it with screenshots in my favorite games. It's nice in those instances because you can get it to be *actually* perfect with little effort, and it seems to land more with people when the 3D effect is applied to something they're personally familiar with, as opposed to just random shit they've never seen in real life. On a recent vacation, I randomly thought to take some of these now that I've got a really nice camera. Because it came up out of the blue, I didn't really put any actual thought or effort into it. I shot it freehand, and I retardedly decided to take landscape shots rather than portrait. I don't have 3D glasses and I also don't know how to make that style in software, so I always just do stereoscopic cross-eyed pairs since you don't need any tool to view them.Picrel is one of those that I did on my vacation, just quickly thrown together once I found this thread. I've seen some that incorporate differently-shaped framing for each image so that it's not just the content in the images themselves that's 3D, but the shapes of the images too. I really want to try that out some time, but I've been neglecting to do a little research on how it works. The shapes I did here aren't an attempt at that, just something to make separation easier, and to give the finished image a coherent shape.>>4518816>They are a cross pairForgive me anon, but what do you mean by this? Neither >>4518681 nor >>4518816 (nor OP's >>4518715) resolve into an image with 3D depth for me when viewing cross-eyed. These seem like they would be 3D if the images were swapped though.
>>4523771Nice to see another stereo Anon, and thanks for posting an image!First a glossary: "cross" is just short for 'cross pair' - you need to cross your eyes to view the image in 3D. The pic in OP is the opposite: a parallel image - you need to let your eyes drift apart like you're looking at something way off in the distance. Cross is necessary if the image is large, because not many people can make their eyes drift outwards beyond parallel. So the corresponding pixels in the two frames shouldn't (can't) be farther apart than the viewer's eyes to be viewable for parallel. Cross though, large images can be pretty easily viewed.Attached is the Voyager ornament as a cross pair.Perhaps oddly, the convention is to distribute parallel images.Another format is "side by side" (SBS, or 'universal freeview L-R-L'). This has the right frame sandwiched between copies of the left, resulting in three frames. The viewer can choose to view the left pair as parallel or the right pair as cross. This saves 33% of the file size vs. posting two different pairs of images. It's not often done though - most post either/or (usually parallel).
>>4523771>>4523803Let's make life easier for you... I highly recommend the freeware "stereophotomaker"(.com) to gather and align pairs of images to process. It's kind of the industry de facto standard. If you name your files such that pairs have the same name but have an "L" or "R" appended ([mypic]_L.jpg and [mypic]_R.jpg), then when you open "Open L/R Images..." and pick the L, it will offer the R for the right pane. I like to add an underscore to highlight the distinction.The pair are then displayed to fit the window. You have the option to view the pair at 100% size, which then enables panning around the pair. Menu buttons allow viewing the pair in many types of anaglyph (red/cyan is far and away the most common), but you have to pull down the "View", "Swap Left/Right" (or remember the keyboard shortcut "X") to toggle between parallel and cross.Hit "S" to save whatever format you're viewing. I like to append a "_p" for parallel, "_x" for cross, "_a" for anaglyph in monochrome or "_ac" for color. For posted images, the "s" means it's a small image: the originals are 6kx4k each.
oh c'mon just cut it with that stupid software or buy an ad. every idiot can do stereo images in any image processing software available. it's just placing images next to each other or overlaying them on different channels. or with color masks. don't make it more than it is.on a different note, parallel is de facto standard because the de facto standard for watching stereo images is with the help of lenses. barley anybody is capable of doing it without any support tool. which is why stereo never made it as a mass medium. and the today's most used tool is probably that smartphone VR glasses/adapters. which is - surprise - two lenses in front of parallel placed images.to make that thread interesting do not post stupid test images but rather discuss how rigs could or do look like and what specific differences there are in shooting, compared to 2D imaging.
>>4523823Blow it out your ass.I don't see you doing any discussing other than whining.Buy an ad.. the software's free, numbnutsAnd you can use scissors to mow a lawn, but a mower is a lot faster, easier,and leaves a smoother surface. I've done it manually too. Novel, but idiotic to do it that way and you end up with sub par results.
>>4523834>you end up with sub par resultsyep ... (You) do
>>4523845Go ahead, post something OC. Your opinion otherwise is meaningless trolling.
