Re: [photo-3d] Re: The "wobble" effect

[Ron Beck <rbeck@xxxxxxxx>]

Well, I found some gif animation software and used the "sample_*" files
from the 3D AnaMaker package from Takashi Sekitani.  I would have tried
some of my left & right images but they're not aligned as well as his
examples.

You can view the "wobble" image at...

	http://www.egroups.com/files/photo-3d/sample.gif

Mostly, the image just makes me dizzy.  However, if you cover the top
half with your hand and view the bottom half, you get a much better
sense of depth.  I played around with the "wobble" speed (actually the
looping speed between the two images) and found that a rate of 70-100 ms
delay between each image seemed to provide the best depth queues.

I think this type of presentation would work well with tabletop or macro
stereo rather than normal stereo shots.  If anyone has a good pair of
macro images I could "borrow", I'd be happy to try.  Or, if you want, go
to...

	http://rtlsoft.com/animagic/download.html

and download the animation software yourself.

In all, it's quite interesting.
Ron

Gabriel Jacob wrote:
> 
> > Now, can anyone do this with one of their stereo images?  If I can find
> > my gif animation software, I may try it.
> 
> I do it all the time! :-) Often when I get a left and right stereo pair on the computer
> and view them sequentially (using a image program specializing in viewing
> and cataloging) I notice the sudden perspective shift of the image and the
> seemingly 3-D depth. I believe this depth is simply motion parallax, which
> is a close second to stereoscopic depth perception. Note, motion parallax
> is not a stereoscopic depth cue.
> 
> P.S. I remember another interesting thread regarding this kind of "3-D" in
> a discussion regarding lenticulars and viewing the "3-D" with one eye and
> rotating the lenticular (or hologram). John Roberts had posted about it, if
> memory serves.
> 
> P.P.S. I have a vague recollection reading about  the 3-D without glasses.
> I think it was more a flickering rather than a wobble (sorry for the less than
> technical terminology! ;-) ) Was that the case? I don't remember it being
> a motion parallax effect. It might have been.
> 
> Gabriel