Re: Northern California in 3d

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adam L. Beckerman writes,
>>4.  Since I seem to only be able to view wide-eyed, and not cross-eyed
>>(for most images), can anyone else attest to the fact that Gabriel
>>notes: One minor point, some of the L-R-L pictures were actually
>>L-R-R. I find this hard to believe considering the way I went about
>>composing the L-R-L pictures. If anything, they _could_ be R-L-R, but
>>I find it hard to believe that they are L-R-R.  Can anyone else
>>comment??  If some ARE L-R-R, which ones?

Larry Berlin writes,
>*****  None of the images on your site today are LRR.

That is true, but when they were first posted the day before they
were L-R-L, and Adam subsequently posted that they were indeed
originally put up as L-R-L. As Larry mentions you don't have to
be able to cross-view to determine the proper orientation. In 
Adam's original web page, ALL the left pair images were correctly
positioned for parallel-viewing, thus L-R. The right pair, was in
2D, regardless if it was viewed parallel or cross-eyeddd.

Now a question arises to Adam's freeviewing mode, he mentions that
he didn't think they were originally in L-R-L (but later retracted)
but rather R-L-R (which they were not). Adam mentions he prefers to
free-view in parallel-mode, could it be that maybe his viewing preference
is cross-eyed? The reason I suggest this is because he thought he had
put some of the images R-L-R but that would suggest the left pair being
pseudo (if indeed viewed parallel). Adam?

Just a note, now that all the images are in L-R-L, the left pair should
appear normal and the right pair pseudo, when they are viewed parallel.
Another way to determine which is which is by the slight perspective
changes. In the left image more of the left side of the objects are
visible and similiarly on the right, more of the right side.

Gabriel, 3D investigator. ;-)



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