Re: [photo-3d] Re- 2D to 3D conversions

["Dan Shelley" <dshelley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Great pictures Dan - they must have taken a lot of time and patience
> to get such a 'genuine' effect.  I once wrote to Ray Zone for advice
> on converting and he said it's like learning to play the guitar and
> improves with plenty of practice.

Thanks for the feedback Phil (and others).

I should have said that these images were being converted for use in a
high school yearbook. No, they are not the most interesting subjects
for conversion, unless you are in, and getting that yearbook. =)

More on the images! The first one took the most time because I had to
introduce so many layers of depth. It was hard, but a good (continued)
learning experience. I like the quote from Ray above - seems to fit
the situation very well. =)

Jim wrote: "Those are very impressive! I've been planning on trying
out the instructions you  posted for doing 2D to 3D conversions in the
P3D files."

Well, it might interest you to know that I DID NOT use that method for
these images. instead I "masked" the closest area. Cut it out of the
image, removed the mask and "smeared" the information to the right of
the cut out are into the "holes" left by the cut out, then I put the
mask back where it was removed from, pasted the cut out area back and
placed it exactly, then shifted it to the left one pixel... Repeat
this process for each and every layer of depth you want to
introduce...

> How many levels did you use for these images?

The first (guy and girl) probably has about 18 to 20 levels... The
second (the girls) probably has about 8 to 10...

> To be very picky I think that some of the faces
> show slightly exaggerated depth, but I doubt
> I'd notice it if I didn't know these were conversions.

The second was harder because there was NOT much depth in the real
image... So, I highlighted (and exaggerated - good call Jim and
George) facial features, and their chests as that was about all I
could put "above" most of the rest of the image, and then raised their
bodies above the floor to add a bit more depth.

David wrote: "Are these conversions something that lend themselves to
anaglyph rather
than cross or parallel image pairs? It seems like when people talk
about
it they usually mention anaglyph format."

The resulting images can be displayed as pairs. See:
http://www.dddesign.com/temp/2dto3d.jpg which is a reduced and
compressed pair version of the first image from the note the other
day. (FYI - The original is on the left.) The anaglyphs I presented
yesterday were made that way because that is how they will be printed
in the yearbook. I also believe that anaglyphs tend to be slightly
more "forgiving" in that SMALL "errors" might be more easily ignored
in that format.

> I have an image that I would love to have converted
> to a stereo pair.  I'm probably too cheap to pay for it
> though, and don't know where to begin to do it myself.

See the instructions posted above and give it a try... If you really
wan it converted and can't get it done yourself, give me a personal
e-mail and let's talk... It's not as expensive as you might think. =)

Ron wrote: "Using Photoshop or ???"

Nope, I used an old program I am very comfortable with - Picture
Publisher V4. =) I could do in Photoshop and save layers, etc, but
this is more fun for me. =)

Again, thanks all for your comments!

Dan Shelley
dshelley@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.dddesign.com