Wiggling Stereo
I make pictures and present them in such a way that one can see the stereo effect. This not really new method is called "wiggling stereo". More than that. I incorporate these photos in virtual tours.
It produced some interest. I have moved the rising discussion about wiggling stereo to this blog, so that everyone can freely participate. Here is my original article: Wiggling Stereo Wiggle.
I can not make it a forum yet, but if you wish to make a new topic - e-mail me and I will make it, and put your e-mail there.
So here are the previous comments:
Nice photos! But... "Wiggling" is NOT stereo, just as listening to a CD through only ONE speaker is NOT stereo. Just stick with anaglyph or stereo pairs if you want to show true stereo. "Wiggling" is not a stereo format - and is quite annoying. It's important that people are not misled into believing it is stereo. Thanks!AndaluciaSan Francisco, CA USA - Friday, March 10, 2006 at 17:32:50 (CST)
- It is stereo. There are 2 photographs there, and with some adaptation most people can feel the depth. It is much easier to use then a stereoscope, and your eyes will not get sour in 10 minutes. It has exactly the same amount of information as any other stereo pair. In fact, it is better... If it annoys you, you can click S on the keyboard and toggle it off. How can I mislead anyone? They see it with their own eyes. Anyway, thank you for the post. It helped me to improve the site - the information about using S to toggle stereo effect was missed on some pages. Click.
I don't think you understand the theroy behind stereo photography. Unlike animation there are two images displayed at the SAME time, which were taken at the same time. This is the same way 3-D films work. Two cameras are spaced at a distance equal to the distance between the eyes. and shot SIMULTANIOUSLY. Then viewed through the stereoscope. Your eyes are forced to look at the images seperately, and your brain puts the images together as if you were looking directly at what was photographed; therefore giving you the 3-D effect. The theory behind 3-D video is similar, except that when filmed, the cameras use seperate color filters (one green, one red). When you view the 3-d movie through colored glasses, the colored lenses essentially filter out all of the greens from one eye, and all of the reds from the other, once again forcing one eye to view what was shot through one camera and the other eye, the other camera. Wiggling is nothing more than a two frame video and does little for a three dimensional effect. esspecially at the 2-3 frames per second rate that your website is displaying. Perhaps with a much higher frame rate you would achieve a better effect... It would also work best shooting inanimate objects, because in the ammount of time it takes you to shoot the seperate photos with one camera, if you have a lot of movement between frames it distracts the eyes from what they should actually be looking at to get the wiggling effect. Also just as in true stereograph, the camera should only be moved about the distance between the eyes. It varies between people but it's only about between two to two and a half inches. Hope this helps. Wiggling is NOT stereo. Your post on the Impact Lab website regarding the sidewalk chalk photos claims that his effect will only look 3-d on a flat photo and will not produce "Enough effect" the effect seen there is MUCH much better than any effect on your virtual tours. If he were to draw these for STEREO they would produce the stereo effect. However, since they are drawn for a single photo, the effect lies in a single photo. If you took them with your wiggling method, it would ruin the effect, and look no better than any thing else on your website.
-Austin P.S. Sorry if this seems harsh, feel free to reply.Austin MabryOrem, UT USA - Saturday, March 25, 2006 at 23:49:48 (CST)
Thanks, Austin,
I'd like to reply and discuss it.
I do not know how, but it would be interesting to take a stereo photo of these asphalt pictures and present it. In any way - for a stereoscope or for my wiggle method and let people decide how it looks in 3-D.
No question these pictures on the asphalt is a wonderful illusion, actually quite known in arts since the discovery of perspective. The author made the art in live. That is kind of cool. But we do not discuss it here. I believe, the topic of the discussion is wiggling method whether producing stereo illusion or not, and these asphalt drawings could be just an interesting example.
I do not really understand your anger toward wiggling method. It works for many people, try to feel it yourself - it is not more difficult than with some other not-technical methods. It definitely produces stereo effect. Relax, sit back. I can see it, so can you.
I believe, similar phenomena of creating stereo illusion is used in most modern movies all the time, I do not mean 3D movies, but blockbusters! Perhaps, that is why Hollywood is not interested in "true" stereo - they already use it much more conveniently for the audience.
I have experimented with method for months, I have made hundreds of photographs. I know many tricks and nuances besides the fact that it works. I would make all my virtual tours and photographs in this "stereo", but it takes about 20 fold more time and effort to make those pictures.
I have a small article about it: http://www.virtuar.com/click/essay/giants/wiggle.htm
It has some links to previous works like Jim Gasperini's, and forgotten "Wobble Stereo".
Igor Polk
It produced some interest. I have moved the rising discussion about wiggling stereo to this blog, so that everyone can freely participate. Here is my original article: Wiggling Stereo Wiggle.
I can not make it a forum yet, but if you wish to make a new topic - e-mail me and I will make it, and put your e-mail there.
So here are the previous comments:
Nice photos! But... "Wiggling" is NOT stereo, just as listening to a CD through only ONE speaker is NOT stereo. Just stick with anaglyph or stereo pairs if you want to show true stereo. "Wiggling" is not a stereo format - and is quite annoying. It's important that people are not misled into believing it is stereo. Thanks!AndaluciaSan Francisco, CA USA - Friday, March 10, 2006 at 17:32:50 (CST)
- It is stereo. There are 2 photographs there, and with some adaptation most people can feel the depth. It is much easier to use then a stereoscope, and your eyes will not get sour in 10 minutes. It has exactly the same amount of information as any other stereo pair. In fact, it is better... If it annoys you, you can click S on the keyboard and toggle it off. How can I mislead anyone? They see it with their own eyes. Anyway, thank you for the post. It helped me to improve the site - the information about using S to toggle stereo effect was missed on some pages. Click.
I don't think you understand the theroy behind stereo photography. Unlike animation there are two images displayed at the SAME time, which were taken at the same time. This is the same way 3-D films work. Two cameras are spaced at a distance equal to the distance between the eyes. and shot SIMULTANIOUSLY. Then viewed through the stereoscope. Your eyes are forced to look at the images seperately, and your brain puts the images together as if you were looking directly at what was photographed; therefore giving you the 3-D effect. The theory behind 3-D video is similar, except that when filmed, the cameras use seperate color filters (one green, one red). When you view the 3-d movie through colored glasses, the colored lenses essentially filter out all of the greens from one eye, and all of the reds from the other, once again forcing one eye to view what was shot through one camera and the other eye, the other camera. Wiggling is nothing more than a two frame video and does little for a three dimensional effect. esspecially at the 2-3 frames per second rate that your website is displaying. Perhaps with a much higher frame rate you would achieve a better effect... It would also work best shooting inanimate objects, because in the ammount of time it takes you to shoot the seperate photos with one camera, if you have a lot of movement between frames it distracts the eyes from what they should actually be looking at to get the wiggling effect. Also just as in true stereograph, the camera should only be moved about the distance between the eyes. It varies between people but it's only about between two to two and a half inches. Hope this helps. Wiggling is NOT stereo. Your post on the Impact Lab website regarding the sidewalk chalk photos claims that his effect will only look 3-d on a flat photo and will not produce "Enough effect" the effect seen there is MUCH much better than any effect on your virtual tours. If he were to draw these for STEREO they would produce the stereo effect. However, since they are drawn for a single photo, the effect lies in a single photo. If you took them with your wiggling method, it would ruin the effect, and look no better than any thing else on your website.
-Austin P.S. Sorry if this seems harsh, feel free to reply.Austin Mabry
Thanks, Austin,
I'd like to reply and discuss it.
I do not know how, but it would be interesting to take a stereo photo of these asphalt pictures and present it. In any way - for a stereoscope or for my wiggle method and let people decide how it looks in 3-D.
No question these pictures on the asphalt is a wonderful illusion, actually quite known in arts since the discovery of perspective. The author made the art in live. That is kind of cool. But we do not discuss it here. I believe, the topic of the discussion is wiggling method whether producing stereo illusion or not, and these asphalt drawings could be just an interesting example.
I do not really understand your anger toward wiggling method. It works for many people, try to feel it yourself - it is not more difficult than with some other not-technical methods. It definitely produces stereo effect. Relax, sit back. I can see it, so can you.
I believe, similar phenomena of creating stereo illusion is used in most modern movies all the time, I do not mean 3D movies, but blockbusters! Perhaps, that is why Hollywood is not interested in "true" stereo - they already use it much more conveniently for the audience.
I have experimented with method for months, I have made hundreds of photographs. I know many tricks and nuances besides the fact that it works. I would make all my virtual tours and photographs in this "stereo", but it takes about 20 fold more time and effort to make those pictures.
I have a small article about it: http://www.virtuar.com/click/essay/giants/wiggle.htm
It has some links to previous works like Jim Gasperini's, and forgotten "Wobble Stereo".
Igor Polk
posted by Igor Polk at 4:03 PM
2 comments
