I saw this on a kids birthday card shaped like a pair of goggles, its basically two identical pictures with a pair of magnifying lenses approx 2 inches away from the surface.
Now the pictures just look normal to me, not like the red/green 3d images you used to see, so how is the 3d effect produced? Its actually pretty good and in full colour.
This sounds like a stereoscope. The pictures are not identical but taken at the same time inches apart. This is the way your eyes see, each one sees a slightly different view (parallax). So when your eyes are presented with two slightly different pictures, it fools your brain into interpreting it as 3D.
I wish stuff like this worked for me. Unfortunately I have one dominant eye and can’t see the 3D effect in these things, or the red-and-green pictures. Or in the real world, I assume, although without knowing how other folks see the world, I can’t really tell 
Everyone has a dominant eye to a certain extent…I do, but I still see things in three dimensions…Do you have a condition that causes no 3-D vision?
I saw a movie on this …(name escapes me)
But his vision was due to surgery or transplant…could not tell the real apple from the picture… I’d love to here what your I-Doc says about no 3-D vision.
Dominant eye test:
I don’t know that I have no 3-D vision. Certainly the world doesn’t look noticeably different through one eye from the way it does through both. I did, thanks to this message board, manage to see one of those autostereograms of a teapot, though, which was very cool. I had never seen one before despite hours of staring
Well, when I was about eight or nine my optician said “You’ll never be a test pilot or a Test cricketer, but you won’t have any problems with your vision.” Certainly I don’t usually have any problem judging distances: I can happily drive, park, play squash etc. One of my housemates at university did her thesis on “non-stereo visual depth perception cues”, and I was her star guinea pig…
I can not tell by your description of the card but there is a way to produce 3-D images called Lenticular or Holagraphic. You basicly develope your art using layers and once printed you put it behind a lens kind of like some of the old projection TV’s. The following site has some samples of the “movement” images but it not possible to reproduce the 3-D on your monitor.
Maybe i should have posted that site:smack:
I did the test and I see a double image of my finger unless I’m almost touching the object I’m pointing at, so what does that mean? Am I ambiocular?
Er, you ought not to see a double image if you are focusing on your finger. Focus on your finger, not the distant object you are pointing at.
My left eye is very dominant, so if I focus beyond the finger I do see a double image, but it is composed of a solid-looking finger on the right (ie the left-eye image) and a ghostly, see-through finger on the left (the right-eye image). But if I focus on the finger, the two images merge into one.
I see a double image as well… maybe what they are really asking is which image you tend to line up with the object? I am right handed so I tend to line the left finger image up with the object when I am using my right hand, but I line the right image up when I use my left hand. In either case I tend to use the image that is closest to the object, so swinging my arms up from different parts of my FOV implies that I have a different eye dominance (right with right, left with left).
I guess that because I am right handed I have right eye dominance?
Now wait a minute r_k, when I focus on my finger the object that I was pointing at splits into two images, with my single finger pointing at the one on the right. When I do the same with my left arm, it is reversed.
from the above-referenced site:
Which finger? If I try to point at something off in the distance and focus on the thing in the distance, I have two images of my index finger with which to point. I can focus on the finger instead, but then I’ve got two images of the distant object to point at. Either way, this “test” seems to beg the question, either that or I’m missing something.
Hmm, I see my confusion on this matter isn’t exactly unique.
I think an easier test is to look at something about 10 feet away like a light switch. Hold a pencil between your eyes about 1 foot in front of your face and center it on the light switch. Focus on the light switch (the pencil will be blurry). Now close one eye. Did the pencil move? Now open both eyes again and try closing the other eye. Which ever eye moves the pencil image the LEAST will be the dominate eye.
Well it works for me. The distant object goes fuzzy and out of focus, but there is only one of it. And, sure enough, if I close my left (dominant) eye, my finger appears to be pointing off to the left of the target (i.e., where the “ghost” finger is with both eyes open)
I can see how, if both your eyes are the same “strength”, then deciding which is the “main image” of your finger would be tricky. In which case you have failed the test.
See me.
The ever-popular Viewmaster is an example of this 3-D process.
With squid’s test, if i focus on the pencil i see two TV antennae (the 10 foot distant object), and if i focus on the antenna I see two pencils. Same with my finger. Neither double image seems more solid than the other, but if the images intersect at some point that portion seems solid.
Yes, but one of those double images will be the one that normally points directly at the object.
Try this: Close one eye (doesn’t matter which) and point at an object several feet away. The important part is to not try to align your finger with the object. Just point instinctively, in one quick motion, without thinking about it.
With your dominant eye open, your finger should be more-or-less aimed right at the object. With your non-dominant eye open, your finger should appear to the side of the object.
The quick motions seems to be an important part that was left out of the other tests. Done that way, I’m right dominant.