Ok gang.  I'm curious how many people can see 3D on the practice image at the bottom of the page below after reading the instructions.  The photo is displayed in the cross-view mode which means you basically need to cross your eyes a little to see it.  Just follow the instructions on the page and then see if you can get the 3D effect on the practice image at the end of the article.  One thing that the online instructions often don't tell you is that you should be positioned directly in front of the pictures (nose about lined up with the center) and that your head angle is important so tilting your head to the left/right slightly often helps to align the photos.  I'm interested in how many people can actually achieve the cross-view 3D viewing.  So far, I've found that less than 20% of people are able to see the depth effect.

http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase/ihelp.html

While it seems to be the most difficult method to teach (and I'm not sure everyone can even BE taught), I find the cross-view method far better than any other method for viewing 3D photos because you can print much larger photos (8x10 or larger) and freeview them on a regular sheet of photo paper with no viewer or tools.  3D (stereo) viewers are available for much smaller prints but once you get used to the crossview method, nothing beats it.  Only downside is some eye strain but once you get used to it, it is minimal and the eyestrain goes away almost completely.  That said, please don't strain yourself.    The other method for freeviewing is parallel (sometimes called relaxed) view.  That's similar to how you used to view those stereogram books that were popular in the early 90's where you relax your eyes and focus at a distance.  The problem with that is the fact that you must display the side-by-side images no larger than about the size of a business card (total width) to easily be able to get the effect and anything larger than about 4 inches across is physically impossible for that method.

Thanks for any feedback,
Mike

Yes I can see the 3D, but infact I see three images - one in the center in 3D and two on either side sort of blured.

I will give eyes a rest and try again tomorrow.

Reminds me of my miss spent youth, when we used to have Dinah Dors pics and red and green viewers, prob. that's why my eyes are not so good now.

Jeff

fwiw, you can take 3d images with a normal camera of static subjects. The easy way is tripod mounted, and move the tripod sideways for the second image. It depends on the subject but probably about an eight inch separation would be a good starting point. You can view the parallel images at large scale, by putting a sheet of card perpendicular to the screen/print to your nose. Your left eye then can only see the left image, your right the right image.

I used to make anaglyphs a few years back. I got sort of interested in enhancing the 3d effect by moving the camera distances further, and printing at different overlaps. I bought a couple of cheap p&s's, and made a bracket to take both, at adjustable positions, wired a push button switch into both cameras to fire them at the same time. It worked fine, but in the end the novelty wore off  . For anaglyphs you can either use colour filters over the lens, or apply the filter afterwards in post. A lens filter is probably simplest, since you can use the same filter in your viewing glasses. Making anaglyph prints would be fun, you'd need some transparency/image blending setting, else you would see the top print only, with a fringe of the bottom print.

I suppose these days you'd refresh the screen with the two images in synch with some lcd glasses. Apparently there are different methods shown on U-tube, for example.

Best wishes,

Ray

Hi Mike,

It did. Also, bear in mind, when I was doing this, there were not many large vdu's, nor anything above a4 printer that was at any sort of affordable price. Anaglyphs with the simple coloured glasses were the solution if size mattered. The point and shoots I used had huge 1Mp sensors    (Agfa's, iirc)  but 30 years prior to that I'd used 35mm slides and a home made viewer, and I had known a guy who gave me some sepia toned stereo glass slides he had made when a youngster, probably back in Victorian times.

Technology evolves slightly faster than the human eyeball, I guess. Making a viewer for parallel images is not difficult, a couple of mirrors and a cardboard box will do it simply enough, but maybe three images are better than one.

Best wishes,

Ray

Not me.  Maybe it's my astigmatism and glasses.  Have never been able to do this unless I go extremely crosseyed, then I get about a half second glimpse that almost works followed by a three and a half minute headache. Those 3D weird pictures that they sell in card shops and novelty stores (on calendars mostly I think)  - where you have to get to within a few inches - have never made that work either.  Some of you just have more "vision" than others of us.  So, I'll continue to enjoy my Beethoven in stereo, but my photography in mono.

Mel W.  Columbia, Md.

Had another go, and yes works quite well for me.  Looked at the other examples on the site.

However, I have some difficulty masking out the side images, tend to loose the effect.

Jeff 

If you can view parallel views 7 inches wide, you may be the only person on the planet who can!  Printing parallel images 7 inches wide would give 3.5 inches of separation which is well beyond anyone's interoccular distance.  Anything past the distance between the pupils (interoccular distance) requires that you diverge your eyes (opposite of crossing them).  This is not dependent on how far away you view: you'll always have to diverge to see 3D if the print itself has more separation than your eyes.  I don't know a single person who can diverge their eyes.  But I guess there's always a first.

Mike

There are entire groups dedicated to this stuff, with lots of photos.  This is one of my favorite:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/62553512@N00/pool/

Mike