P3D Re: adult conversions?

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)]

Ron Labbe wrote:

>I'm guessing that they're not conversions, but sequential pairs. Where
>little would be moving (example I:\adult\adult1\soft_m_2.htm) I see no
>artifacts~ this particular image would be incredibly difficult to convert
>effectively, as most of them would...

On this one image, I have to yield to Ron.  Even inspecting it magnified,
using photoshop, I could not find any evidence for conversion.  With the
others, now that I have brought photoshop to bear, I think it is quite
clear that they are not true stereo pairs (sequential or otherwise).  This
is apparent if you carefully examine edges in your browser view - it is
patently obvious if you examine the images enlarged in a graphics program.
Another tiny bit of supporting evidence: if it is debatable, whether an
image has been tampered with, one thing is always true in these
conversions:  One of the images is the original photograph, the other is
"fabricated."  So as you examine the pairs, even if you cannot put your
finger on a definite artifact, you can see that only one half-pair appears
to have edges of lesser quality, or odd textures.

Just to add some interest, here are my findings for each pair - see for
yourself.  (You can tell I'm killing time tonight...)

Image #1:
The right image is artificial.  Very obvious tampering in the hair on left
side of face.  Background needed shifting to right (behind head), but the
part of background "in the hair" could not be shifted.  Conversely, along
the right edge of her left arm, background had to be fabricated (cloned),
and you can see some funny textures there.  Interesting in this shot is how
much time and effort was lavished on the model's breasts (who could blame
him or her?).  They look very round and three dimensional, even magnified
in photoshop.  Immediately adjacent and below is her tummy, and some fabric
- these features look flat as a board!

Image #2:
The right image is artificial.  This was a bit more difficult.  Not many
vertical edges needing work.  Edge problems are not readily apparent,
however the right image is clearly of lesser quality in some areas -
especially in the hair of the right model, three dimensionality is
confused.  The clincher is in the background, where the pillows, etc.
appear somewhat flat.  Moreover, the background includes some dark glass
(windows?) with reflections.  The reflections are "painted" right on the
glass!

Image #3 does not appear to be a conversion, after all.

Image #4:
This is a tough one, rather small and well done.  Well done background with
a three dimensional chair!  On the chair is some clothing, and looking
through a hole in the fabric, the background appears at the level of the
cloth  (although this is apparent un-magnified, I did not notice it until I
put the images under the photoshop loupe).  Not many other clues in this
one.  I'm not sure which image is the artificial one: right?

Image #5:
The right image is fabricated.  Look for cloning above the left shoulder,
and the right edge of right leg.  Interestingly, the LEFT image (the
"original") is of poorer quality, showing many more JPEG artifacts.
Somewhere along the way, it must have gotten compressed at a lower quality.

Image #6:
The right image is fabricated.  Gee, I guess it was the right image in all
of them...  cloning can be seen along the various edges of both legs - but
the dead giveaway is the totally flat reflection in the tabletop surface.
Even though the surface is wood, the lighting is such that the image in the
wood is a specular reflection, not shadows.

So, you may ask, why go to such a fuss over this teensy tiny corner of the
3D-CD?  Because it's fun!  No, no, wait - because I produce true
stereoscopic nudes, and these are fakes!  It's a dirty job, but somebody
has to do it.

I am still impressed with these though.  Maybe someone else knows better,
but I imagine a lot of painstaking work is involved, even in these rather
small images.


>Otherwise I would have totally avoided the adult sextion...   <sic>

good one...

_______________

and

>From: Dan Shelley <dshelley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
...
>With all the 3D-CD "adult" section talk, I thought I should clarify
>something. This is a small, albeit apparently popular, sub-menu on the
>CD that contains links to all sites that have _ANY_ thing adult in
>nature in them. I chose to separate this section from the others as
>there is some great stereo work (both "adult" and otherwise) represented
>there and I wanted to include it in the project, but wanted to give
>people who might like to skip such stuff an easy way to do so. Just
>don't follow that one link. =)
>
>FYI - This section includes sites like Ray Hannisian's site, Harold
>Baize's Burning Man site, Stereoskopklubben - Danish Stereo Society,
>Photopromotion, Boris Starosta's site...

Thanks for the clarification.  Indeed some of those "adult" sites are 95%
regular american pie family style photography.  But I understand and
appreciate Dan's concern about not leading anyone astray.  My 3dshowcase is
in there, as well as my page of 16 computer generated stereo pairs
(shameless advertising).  Tnanks again, Dan.




Boris Starosta

usa 804 979 3930

boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.starosta.com
http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase



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