Meant to be Seen

Hi. I tried looking anaglyph pictures through red filter only and on most pictures it works. How?
Maybe pictures can be improved to be seen only through one filter. Try it yourself.
One eye is free and one eye looks through red

Well on certain content this does actually work, and looks somewhat decent. However, most of the time you will want to wear the glasses with both red/cyan lenses. It will give the full effect. With only the red you are going to be seeing more ghosting (in the right eye) and a diminished 3D effect. Colors will look better though.

Yes, but people maybe can improve pictures and glasses for this viewing method?
Even with ghosting, pictures are much sharper and brighter.

Here are some pictures with minimal ghosting:

mini separation + colorfilters = duh, get a CRT

It reminds me a lot of the Eclipse method, although this one uses a stereoscope or mechanical shutters, it's based on the same principle of a monochrom image and a full color image. They've implemented algorithms to calibrate the images to a particular display.

See here for more information :
http://www.eclipse-3d.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or here for the Wikipedia entry :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film#Eclipse_method" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wait, what? Never heard of this Eclipse 3D before, but it actually works!!!


Note: image is parallel view.

However it seems to require shutter glasses (mechanical shutters?) so it almost seems pointless. Why bother with this method if you still need shutter glasses? In that case you can just do full color page-flipping. I don't see what the advantage is here.

Getting back to the topic of just using the red lens. It does work on content with very conservative separation. But it falls apart at higher settings.

This image works pretty well:


But with high separation you get a horrible double image (look at the gun):


Still, might be worth looking into. Someone could make glasses where the cyan side was 50% (or more) transparent and it could work well.

I do get a deptheffect in most images using the left eye lense only (red). However it overall seem a lot better using standard anaglyph glasses and both lenses. But maybe that's just me...

Likay wrote:I do get a deptheffect in most images using the left eye lense only (red). However it overall seem a lot better using standard anaglyph glasses and both lenses. But maybe that's just me...

Its a trade-off. Do you want the full color or do you want the full 3d? I think I'd take the full 3D. Color is so over-rated.

Not only color. You also get sharpness and brightness. Most images are blur

what about the 80-90% less brightness

never tried anaglyph never will

tritosine wrote: never tried anaglyph never will

You never tried anaglyph? Are you kidding me? Thats like being a gamer and never having played the NES!!! Dude, I will send you a pair of glasses totally free. Just shoot me a PM with your name/address and I will send them right over. You really should try it, even as just a benchmark to see how good modern solutions are.

I use anaglyph quite often since it's the only (for me working) option in stereophotomaker, stereomoviemaker etc.
Anaglyph is better than the rumour but of course worse than a full color stereoimage.

I have just discovered that if I close left eye I can still see slight 3d effect.

Likay wrote:Anaglyph is better than the rumour but of course worse than a full color stereoimage.

Yeah, I find people always think anaglyph is crap, but its actually not. Maybe they saw some anaglyph TV commercial in the 80's or something and then never bothered with it again. I don't know. But it can look really good at times. Of course, it is not as good as high-end solutions but that's no reason to discount it. The main issue is the loss of color, the actual 3D effect is very similar to real solutions (obviously not as good though, but similar). Once I started testing anaglyph more I was really surprised, at times it can even look better than my Zalman in certain ways (no joke). So here are 2 cross-eye images taken with my free 3D glasses. Obviously the quality is less than in real life (since I had to take with a digital camera through the glasses) but its should give people an idea.

Take a good look at the right side of that box. Notice any ghosting? I don't: This picture also works well since the real scene is gray so you barely lose any of the color:

navika wrote:I have just discovered that if I close left eye I can still see slight 3d effect.

Then you must be tripping. I don't think that's possible.

Take a look at that bear through anaglyph glasses and start open/closing left eye to see the difference. Also look through glasses and start removing it from your eyes to see the difference.
In the first example you will see that effect is not completely lost.

Hey you are saying that polarized glasses gives even better effect than anaglyph?
Thats great!
When I look crossview pictures, objects are further and smaller but when I watch anaglyph, objects are much closer and larger. Effect is much, much better with anaglyph.
And if you are saying that effect can be even better, thats good.

navika wrote:Take a look at that bear through anaglyph glasses and start open/closing left eye to see the difference. Also look through glasses and start removing it from your eyes to see the difference.
In the first example you will see that effect is not completely lost.

If I close my left eye the image becomes 2D. I think maybe you had an after-image still visible (even with a closed eye) and this was giving you a 3D effect. 3D does not work with one eye (at least not that I know of).

navika wrote: Hey you are saying that polarized glasses gives even better effect than anaglyph?
Thats great!
When I look crossview pictures, objects are further and smaller but when I watch anaglyph, objects are much closer and larger. Effect is much, much better with anaglyph.
And if you are saying that effect can be even better, thats good.

Well I would not say the effect is better with anaglyph. It is similar but not not as good. With polarized (or shutter glasses) you will get a full color image so things look more vibrant and true-to-life. There is also no retinal rivalry (since each eye sees different colors with anaglyph), so the image looks much more solid and thus more 3 dimensional. The effect of objects looking bigger or smaller is dependent on the content. With the same content, the 3D effect should be similar.

Nope. I browsed through many pictures on flickr.
Some people put both versions of it, anaglyph and crossview. With anaglyph I see pop-uot effect, but crosseyed object is not even close to the screen. It looks very good but lacks effect.
I will try to find some and will post it to see

Ok, I am not sure will this type of pictures be allowed but it is very hard for me to find others now. If it is not allowed, delete it

Cross eye version:
Anaglyph version:
Crossview version looks good, but anaglyph effect is much better

Deptheffect seems better using a standard 3d-viewing method (in this regard anaglyph is included) where an eye accommodation-conflict is minimized. Viewing crosseyed seems to reduce the deptheffect even if the original image is the same.
Nice images btw!

Smokin jesus where you got that pic from
EDIT, thx Likay
ok , c ya next time !

Pictures of girls are fine, you just can't post nudity or links to adult sites.

I agree the anaglyph version has more depth but I think its mostly just due to the size of the image (ie you can get more depth on an IMAX 3D screen than you can on the Nintendo 3DS). We also don't know if the anaglyph version was processed somehow, meaning the separation was adjusted in Photoshop or whatever. In that case the effect can be altered slightly.

I think this method works better on ColorCode since it's designed to be viewable without glasses. The problem is that the blue filter is just too dark.

navika wrote:I have just discovered that if I close left eye I can still see slight 3d effect.

See 3D with one eye isn't normal, but on acid it is
Sorry can't stand.

Actually in real life we have binocular and monocular depth cues from our eyes.
Binocular cue - "convergence" (simultaneous movement of both eyes toward each other) is what utilized in most modern stereoscopic "three-dee" technologies. It basically requires both eyes to work.
Monocular cue "accommodation" (process by which the vertebrate eye changes optical power to maintain a clear image (focus) on an object as its distance changes.) isn't utilized in popular tech, however there are some research around it.

There are bunch of other "monoscopic" depth-perception cues, psychological in nature - like perspective perception, occlusion, shadows, etc. etc. all of which we have in almost all modern first-person games.

By the way all the cues, including accomodation can be "artificially" experienced in holograms.

It's not convergence that is used in stereoscopy, it's stereopsis.

See here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK2Yi4nzYKU[/youtube]

It just seemed appropriate...

Regards,
Neil

Nice video Neil. I got a good laugh out of it.

And to the one eyed stereo man. About a year ago I sat and stared with no glasses of any type at a news broadcast. The picture wasn't coming in clear and was very distictly blue. The color of the woman speaking was tinted red. Her red face agianst the blue background gave a very distinct depth effect. It wasn't by any means like modern 3D. But in certian situations the red and blue color combo's give me a depth perception. I'm a design engineer and have worked with various CAD systems for 25 years. Some of my designs that utilize red and blue geometry also, at times give depth effect with no glasses. I have been aware of this for along time. Other engineers that I work with have told me the same thing. And as to looking at a red and blue picture with one eye and percieving 3D. Well it really does not suprise me. The mind is remarkable and could help in recreating the depth effect. So I don't think drugs would be required. And yes I believe your percieving a minor depth effect with one eye.

cheers my friends