Re: poor anaglyph quality on WWW

[P3D jon siragusa <siragusa@xxxxxxxxx>]

D Cootey wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 11:19:51 -0500 P3D  <MHGug@xxxxxxx> writes:
>> The browser you're viewing them in makes a big difference. When I 
>>uploaded
>>my anaglyphs and  checked the page I was horrified! I thought the 
>>files must
>>have been ruined in the upload. They were still red & blue but no 3d 
>>effect
>>whatsoever!
>> Came to find out it was AOL's browser. Netscape works better.
>>                                 Mike  
>
>That's a good point.  Even Netscape has problems.  It has a tendency to
>darken all the images it displays.  What a nightmare when you're trying
>to make faint backdrops for web design!  Everything has to be super light
>in order to look as you intended.  I will be experimenting with anaglyphs
>in the near future.  I'll post how much lightening one has to do to get
>the images to appear correctly in Netscape if you folks are interested...
>
>

I've been following this discussion for a bit now...

If any of the persons involved with this discussion have downloaded
DepthCharge, i'd be interested to know how you feel about the anaglyphs
that it produces.  In my opinion they're equal to any other anaglyphs
of the same image, but others may have more sensitive/sharper/pickier 
eyes... 

In almost all cases DepthCharge creates its anaglyphic views "on the
fly".  I'd be interested in how the DepthCharge routines compare to 
the other algorithms that are being used to generate anaglyphs.  Its
possible for me to "tweak" the algorithms in DepthCharge in anyone is
interested in a little side project of figuring out what looks the best
to them... 

jon



------------------------------