I was strolling through the park yesterday with camera in hand, and decided to try something I’d seen on the internet a few times: Stereo photography. Snap a picture, verrrry carefully shift the camera to the right about an inch or so, and snap a second. (There are also cameras made with two shutters just for this kind of photography, but this method works all right for still scenes.) It gives you a pair of photos that are nearly identical, but with about an eye-width’s change in perspective. If you lay the photos side by side, and cross your eyes so that the two images overlap, you see a 3d image.
I shot 3 or 4 sets of photos like this, brought them home, dropped them into Photoshop to align them, and crossed my eyes (and my fingers.) Holy crap, it worked. What I do to see this one as 3D is, I cross my eyes to make the gray tree toward the center of the picture overlap as close as possible, and suddenly the picture will “pop” and be easier to focus.
I’m disappointed that Yahoo photos shrank it down so small. When I have a moment I’ll fix up a couple more photos and set up a real web page with larger versions. I just thought I’d share this one as-is, because it’s still pretty darned cool!
I hate things like this. They make me feel like I’m missing out on stuff. I’ve never really “got” the point of 3-D pictures. Stuff on TV or in photos looks pretty much the same as the real world, only it doesn’t move and it’s all in focus. Hmm…
I used to use these to trace elevations with… two aerial shots and a stereoscope. It’s kinda like Elaine Benice’s boss and that picture; nothing, nothing, nothing, then Pow!
Do you mean plotting contour lines? I’ve always wondered how that was done - could you elaborate please? I asked about it on the boards before but never got a satisfactory answer! From what I gather, you use some kind of projected dot and move it over the surface, right?
I have never been able to cross my eyes. I even tried bring my finger closer and closer to my face to see if I could make it stick, but the instant I tried to see the pictures, they straightened out again. I miss out.
Been a long time, but I used to use it to measure tree height from aerial photos.
There was a little gizmo that attached to the viewer that projected a floating dot over the picture. You read the dial when the dot appeared to float next to the top of the tree, then the ground, and you figured out the height from the readings.
And when the answer revealed the tree was 87,000 feet high, you just took a guess at a reasonable tree height, and wrote that down instead
I saw your 3D forest! Kewl! It was harder than seeing 3D Lisa & Chief Wiggums, maybe because my monitor’s darker than normal. If you don’t want to set up a website, there are some free image hosting sites around that don’t shrink your pics. ImageShack is one, but each pic has to be less than 1 MB. Gonna try my own stereophotography when I get home now. Learn something new everyday!
I don’t get the Magic Eye with the keyboard. Is it basically seeing the letters labeling the keys are alternating (i.e, D alternating with J, F with K, G with L and H with ; )?
Ok. Here’s a quick page with 3 stereo photos (sorry about the Geocities ad. It’s the free webspace I get with my Yahoo email.) I hope some other people can view these, because I find them fascinating and I thought they’d be interesting enough to share.
My father couldn’t get them to work for him either though. The best advice I can give is, don’t put your face right up to the monitor. The closer you are, the more you have to strain to cross your eyes enough to make the images overlap. If you’re a couple of feet away, it’s easier.
I’ve tried doing this, too, and I agree that it’s really cool, at least when it works. I can’t see these things crossing my eyes, though; I have to do it the other way (“diverging”?), that is, swapping the left and right pictures from how you have them. I tried to do a really cool one of the Cincinnati skyline recently, but the only things in the scene that ended up looking 3D were two bridges. I’ll have to try that one again sometime. Your 3D forests are awesome, though!
I also found some web page somewhere that gave fairly simple instructions on how to turn these into pictures that can be viewed with those red-blue 3D glasses, which I have done a few times with success. If anyone’s got the 3D glasses, I have an example here. (If you are wondering about the ransom note in the picture, it is one a friend and I placed on our math teacher’s desk in 9th grade. It’s for a kidnapped pen.)
I’ve been doing this for years. On vacation, I always take 3D shots of interesting things. I’ve got Newgrange in Ireland and the Lincoln Memorial n Washington D.C. in stereo.
A bit of advice – don’t just go for a measly inch or two between shots. Be bold and move it a w feet! Especialy f you’re shooting large object that’s some distance way, putting more space between shots will exaggerate the parallax and give you impressive 3D effects – more than you see with your eyes, because it’s as if your eyes are several feet apart. Things that look flat in real life acquire tangible depth.
I wish I could see the effect you’re talking about. It sounds like it would be so fascinating, but I’ve never been able to see 3D in photos. I lost a credit in high school and received a failing grade in Geography because I was unable to discern the stereoscopic effect of topographical maps with the special glasses (or any other way). I can’t find the hidden pictures in those multicolored posters, either.
Actually, the first time I saw 3D that seemed ‘real’ was in the Terminator exhibit at EPCOT in Orlando.
As you cross the I-75 bridge across the Ohio River, if you look up at the very top of the hill on the Kentucky side, there are (or perhaps were, now) two little 1950’s vintage houses with a flagpole between them. My great uncle lived in one of them for nearly 50 years. He, his wife, and his in-laws next door had THE BEST view of the Cincy skyline that exists, no exaggeration. We have a number of photos, but no 3D ones, unfortunately.
I will have to try this - though in the middle of the woods, with some of the trees just a few feet away, I was afraid too much distance between photos would make them too disparate to overlap effectively. But you’re absolutely right - for big landmarks, the effect would be striking. I’d love to see some of your shots.
These needed to be two separate photos. I don’t know if there’s a way to separate two images from a double exposure - how would you determine for sure which parts of the image belonged to which exposure?
Thanks to all who’ve replied here, and an apology to those who can’t work them out - I wasn’t trying to tease. I hope you can at least enjoy the photos as they are; it’s durned pretty around here right now, the fall color should peak in a few days…
Try defocusing the image by focusing on a closer object like your finger then trying to cross the images on the screen. Works for me on stereo images and magic eye pictures.
I miss out.
