Forum Rules,TOS and Privacy Policy | By visiting this website and viewing the pages within, you accept and agree to be bound by and comply with our Rules Of Conduct, Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy
No matter how great your camera might be, it is how you apply your skills that makes the difference between an OK shot and a great shot. Here you can talk technical, talk creative, share your techniques, lighting, and digital editing. This is where we can all help each other to take better photos.
If you post a photo here and are looking for a critique, you should be prepared for honest criticism even if it hurts. It will only help to make us better photographers.
-Ragnar66- wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:58 am
Btw... it is possible applying the methods on GIF ani´s as well? I know it´s limited color palette so likely an "ugly" experience, but just out of curiosity. [/b]
I would imagine a GIF could be created stereoscopically but the skill and patience required is far above my ability. Also, having a camera that shoots natively in stereo seems to be essential.
I shoot my 3D images with two separate photos and combine them afterwards. During this process, I correct slight misalignments, either manually or with the 3D software. It seems to me that all those minute corrections would stack up and make the 3D GIF produced very wobbly or distorted.
Certainly, if your GIF was an anaglyph, color would be weird. That’s why I post all mine in B&W. I already struggle to make GIFs… I won’t be trying them in 3D anytime soon!
Think I´ll try this while preparing a current themed set which has rather low contrasts and color count. At least that should help with converting to 256 colors required for GIF and not so much overall quality is lost during that process. That´s the theory. Expect some results within next couple of days. Starting with cross eye method first and then see if I can learn one the others.
One thing I'd like to add, you can get 3D stereo pairs to "pop" even more by making the distance between the shots bigger than normal. Normal stereo pair distance between shots is around 7-8cm but depending on the subject, going up to 9 or even 10cm can help images that feel disappointing when done "correctly".
How well it works depends on the subject, lens distance, lighting etc.
Lighting also plays an important role, the "flatter"and duller the lighting, the less 3D they seem.
For digital on-screen viewing, a tad of extra sharpening also helps "sell" the effect.
And here's an interesting bit many people are not aware of:
If you present the brain with a stereo pair of images, it'll work even if the images are IDENTICAL.
The brain will somehow work out (from experience?) how to depth-map the image and create a 3D effect in your mind.
Obviously not as strong and correct as true stereo pairs, but it works on many images.
I can't post images here yet but I'm sure you can try this yourself with any of your images.
Badger42 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 11:27 am
Nice writeup.
Badger, thanks for dropping in and welcome to the forum! I'm happy you found my stereo thread and I look forward to seeing some of your images!
I agree, varying the width is a great way to manipulate the perceived 3D effect... especially with longer focal length lenses! Unfortunately, the parallelogram rig I use always positions the 2 shots the same width apart. I have found the effect to be best with a "wide-normal" style lens most of the time... but distance to subject can screw this up too.
My experiences with dedicated stereoscopic film cameras has been exclusively with ones having fixed focal length lenses. It's always been apparent to me that the camera designers optimized the lens spacing and focal lengths for the best 3D experience. Since the regular digital camera I'm using on my rig allows me to mount any lens I want, I'm usually trying a few different lenses for each setup I'm trying to shoot.
Someday... I hope to build a camera slide. One where I can vary the width between shots accurately and quickly. This may be the only way for me to reap the full benefits of shooting with any focal length lens I want!
Unfortunately I don’t have any of my old images left due to a catastrophic flood a while back. I used to have a D2x with nameless stereo adapter that mounted straight onto the bayonet, which gave very little control but pretty impressive results nevertheless. The edges were always a bit rough so judicious cropping was a must to get images that rendered properly. It shot 2 images onto one frame and was specifically for Nikon mount in APS-C. Picked it up in Hong Kong at the time just out of curiosity. The great thing about it was that you could easily shoot moving subjects with it. The only controls were near or far focus and f/5.6 or f/11 iirc. So many shots were out of focus or poorly exposed. (No communication with the camera whatsoever.
In an effort to get higher quality I eventually built a rig for my D3 with a 45mm lens in portrait mode. Obviously image quality was much better but it was a hassle to use and slow, same issues you have now, so at that point my interest sort of tapered off.
But I’m certainly interested in picking it up again once I have found a willing and unmoving subject in the form of a doll.
Badger42 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 11:27 am
Nice writeup.
One thing I'd like to add, you can get 3D stereo pairs to "pop" even more by making the distance between the shots bigger than normal. Normal stereo pair distance between shots is around 7-8cm but depending on the subject, going up to 9 or even 10cm can help images that feel disappointing when done "correctly".
How well it works depends on the subject, lens distance, lighting etc.
Lighting also plays an important role, the "flatter"and duller the lighting, the less 3D they seem.
For digital on-screen viewing, a tad of extra sharpening also helps "sell" the effect.
And here's an interesting bit many people are not aware of:
If you present the brain with a stereo pair of images, it'll work even if the images are IDENTICAL.
The brain will somehow work out (from experience?) how to depth-map the image and create a 3D effect in your mind.
Obviously not as strong and correct as true stereo pairs, but it works on many images.
I can't post images here yet but I'm sure you can try this yourself with any of your images.
Thanks for extra info! I also found out that random 3D FX with (nearly) identical images by chance (see below). Will delve deeper into this once I got some project finished or try it additionally. Will be interesting seeing and working with backdrop changed and not imaging true space environments (no backdrop swap).
Badger and Ragnar, it's so nice to have another couple of doll peeps interested in this process!
I don't think I'll ever be as hooked into it as my dad was. Later in his film photography 3D obsessions, he attempted to build a side-by-side 2 SLR camera rig. He even had the stubbornness to think he could carry the thing around his neck!
Naturally, the "excessive frugality" of a man who grew up during the Great Depression spoiled his chances. He was determined to use cameras and lenses he already owned... so instead of identical side-by-side setups... he used 2 different generation Pentax bodies with 2 different 3rd party zoom lenses.
I never saw a useable pair from this beast!
I REALLY hope the "stubbornness" gene skips a generation...
ShadowFun wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 5:04 amBadger and Ragnar, it's so nice to have another couple of doll peeps interested in this process!
I don't think I'll ever be as hooked into it as my dad was. Later in his film photography 3D obsessions, he attempted to build a side-by-side 2 SLR camera rig. He even had the stubbornness to think he could carry the thing around his neck!
Naturally, the "excessive frugality" of a man who grew up during the Great Depression spoiled his chances. He was determined to use cameras and lenses he already owned... so instead of identical side-by-side setups... he used 2 different generation Pentax bodies with 2 different 3rd party zoom lenses.
I never saw a useable pair from this beast!
I REALLY hope the "stubbornness" gene skips a generation...
Cough.. I may or may not have tired similar things at some undefined period in time.. cough.
The problem was, back then trying out stuff cost money with every click.
And you wouldn't know what you did right or wrong until you got your film back several days later.
These days with digital, it's so much easier to test and try and perfect setups.
For ease of use, a beamsplitter is still unrivaled.
That doesn't mean I'm not interested in building a rig for 2 D850's with identical 45mm lenses with laser pointers in their hot shoe so they can "toe in" precisely towards the focus point like real human eyes do....
Now if only I could get my hands on a pair of H4D/100's....
Badger42 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 6:46 am
Cough.. I may or may not have tired similar things at some undefined period in time.. cough.
The problem was, back then trying out stuff cost money with every click.
And you wouldn't know what you did right or wrong until you got your film back several days later.
These days with digital, it's so much easier to test and try and perfect setups.
For ease of use, a beamsplitter is still unrivaled.
That doesn't mean I'm not interested in building a rig for 2 D850's with identical 45mm lenses with laser pointers in their hot shoe so they can "toe in" precisely towards the focus point like real human eyes do....
Now if only I could get my hands on a pair of H4D/100's....
Yes... MONEY per click... and instead of it being CENTS per click as it was back then, it can easily be DOLLARS per click now...
I'm sure you read it from my previous posts, but I still use a small fleet of film cameras. Right now, my film photography is on hold, because I need to make sure I am getting the right "value" per click. Long gone are the days I could just burn through film like digital.
I find film to have a unique kind of archival value. Nowhere is this more true than with my Viewmaster stereo camera and reels.
It's not that I look at the film images more than the digital ones... quite the opposite actually... but film images require me to do things "physically" to enjoy them. I can't just tap my phone anyplace anytime, I have to go get the film out of storage and, with the Viewmaster, put the little reels in the viewer and click away through them.
To me, this added dimension of physical complexity makes enjoying the images more deeply personal. And... handing the viewer to another human standing next to me... with all the laughter and storytelling that the images provoke... it's "sharing" at its absolute best!
Oh I have plenty of gear that costs money to click here
I have a soft spot for 70's-90's professional SLR's.
And a B&W darkroom, although that does get used less and less these days.
What I meant was, if you're experimenting in 3D/Stereo, it's much easier to tests theories with digital kit first, then replicate the setup in analog.
With some knowledge in 3D CAD design and access to a 3D printer, you could probably design and build a beamsplitter for your analog cameras at reasonable cost.
[/b]
Expect some results within next couple of days. Starting with cross eye method first and then see if I can learn one the others. 
I also found out that random 3D FX with (nearly) identical images by chance (see below). Will delve deeper into this once I got some project finished or try it additionally. Will be interesting seeing and working with backdrop changed and not imaging true space environments (no backdrop swap).
