Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: elakdawalla Sep 4 2012, 03:42 AM

Hi folks, http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=7397&view=findpost&p=190485 made me wonder what 3D formats really are preferred by UMSF members. Although we are more likely than average to own a pair of red-blue glasses, that doesn't mean that red-blue anaglyphs should necessarily be the go-to choice. What format(s) do you prefer for 3D content?

Posted by: djellison Sep 4 2012, 05:06 AM

X-Eye/Parallel doesn't usually work for me, and when it does I get awful headaches. MPO requires downloading the file and then loading it in a viewing app. Anaglyph all the way.

Posted by: Explorer1 Sep 4 2012, 06:17 AM

Cross-eyed and stereo are just irritating to get the effect, and I don't own any red/blue glasses. Flicker gifs are the really convenient method but I've only seen them a handful of times in many years on UMSF, so I'm not surprised they aren't up for vote.

There's some way to make them oneself, right?

Posted by: brianc Sep 4 2012, 07:38 AM

Flicker - GIF for Colour, Red Blue Anyglif for B&W

Posted by: bigdipper Sep 4 2012, 07:46 AM

FWIW, I second the flicker gifs. I find them particularly useful for short subject posts . They are very effective when you just want to make a point and move on.

For small images which can be studied without panning, I like cross-eyed or parallel stereograms. While I admit that they are an acquired taste, if they came with "training wheel" dots I think more people would enjoy them.

Nowadays, I often find myself with a laptop or other mobile device in a setting where pulling out red-blue glasses draws unwanted attention, but for panoramas or images that require deep thought, I still prefer the anaglyphs.

I was really surprised that flicker gifs didn't appear among the survey choices. Perhaps they could be added to the list.

Posted by: Stu Sep 4 2012, 09:23 AM

Although the "Flicker" 3D pics are useful, I'm definitely a die-hard anaglyph user and maker. Cross-eyed viewing makes me want to be sick. No, anaglyphs are clearer, sharper, better depth of field; you're really "in" the picture.

Personally, I find them fantastic for Outreach - give out a load of glasses to a group, put an anaglyph of martian rocks on the screen, and wait for the communal "Wow!!!"

BTW: re glasses: there's really no excuse for anyone not to have a pair of red/blue glasses handy now, they're easy to get hold of. People in the UK (most countries, I'm sure) can just go down to their local discount bookstore, where I can almost *guarantee* that they'll find at least one book in the children's section -usually about "creepy crawlies" or "dinosaurs" - with 3D content and a free pair of glasses. ( And if you go to a newsagent's there'll be at least one kids magazine with the same.) And, as Doug has pointed out many times, US members can simply write to their nearerst NASA centre and they'll probably be sent some glasses for free.

Posted by: Leither Sep 4 2012, 10:04 AM

X-eye doesn't work for me at all - maybe it's my +60yrs old eyes, maybe it the reading glasses! Anaglyphs are great for B&W (I use red/blue clip-ons); flicker.gifs best for colour or if I want to share with others.

Posted by: belleraphon1 Sep 4 2012, 10:57 AM

Anaglyphs please.

I have pairs of red-blue glasses at home, at work, and now that I have a smartphone, in my car.
(I do not view while driving)

Craig

Posted by: Ian R Sep 4 2012, 11:29 AM

I'm going to buck the trend by placing a vigorous vote for CROSS-EYE.

Posted by: charborob Sep 4 2012, 11:59 AM

Count me in also for cross-eye, but I also like anaglyphs.

Posted by: Bjorn Jonsson Sep 4 2012, 01:14 PM

I voted for anaglyphs and cross-eye stereo for color and grayscale since both of these work for me but I strongly prefer anaglyphs, expecially for big images.

I don't like flicker GIFs - I see no 'depth' in these as in anaglyphs although the 'movement' reveals some of the depth/distance. And a major problem with GIFs is that they are limited to 256 colors.

Posted by: Greenish Sep 4 2012, 01:25 PM

I would strongly encourage more cross-eyed stereo pairs to be posted, especially where color is available. The major advantage is that they can be viewed on any device and they retain color. They do appear smaller than the actual size though, so it's harder to see fine detail, and don't work as well when panning of the image is needed or anything else where mouse interaction is needed because it breaks my focus. Compared to cross-eyed I have a lot of trouble with parallel images; don't know if that's just me or they're more difficult in general.

That said, I finally stuck a pair of cheap red-blue glasses in my drawer at the office, and now I see why folks like anagyphs! The advantage for me is that they images appear full scale. However, I've only seen a few color ones that work so the anaglyphs in my opinion are really best for grayscale. Also minor variations in the colors used vs the glasses lens colors can really make it difficult to see sometimes.

Posted by: algorimancer Sep 4 2012, 01:27 PM

I strongly prefer cross-eyed, and since I've been doing it for upwards of 30 years I find it nearly effortless. I don't have a a pair of the colored glasses for anaglyphs, so I always save them and open as cross-eyed with stereo-photo-maker. I understand that something like 20% of people are unable to work with cross-eyed image pairs, so when I post them I assume that those who can't are either going to ignore them or do what I do with anaglyphs. I think posting either format is going to mildly inconvenience some subset of the population, so I don't see any point in getting worked-up about it either way.

Posted by: dvandorn Sep 4 2012, 01:40 PM

Even though I have my pair of red-blue glasses sitting within inches of my monitor, I actually prefer the cross-eyed technique, especially for color images. Flicker-gifs are good for scenes with relatively shallow overall depth of field, like a close-up of a rock on the ground, but not so good in my experience for deep images, like those that run from foreground to horizon.

I'm thinking people have enough differing tastes in how they like to view 3D images that, at least with current technology, we ought not be looking for one best technique, but instead ought to try to use a variety of techniques so as to give everyone a shot at being able to view these images using their own favorite technique.

-the other Doug

Posted by: lyford Sep 4 2012, 02:34 PM

I'll just add another vote for flicker gifs, especially for smaller features and close ups. But anaglyphs are the easiest on my eyes, I get headaches with anything cross eyed.

Plus putting on the glasses are like a ritual - gettin' serious time!

Posted by: elakdawalla Sep 4 2012, 02:45 PM

Argh, I should've included flicker gifs, my bad. I won't restart the poll -- this is hardly a scientific process anyway -- but I've noted the interest in flicker GIFs. I suppose what I could really use on my website is a way to include a 3D image in text as, say, an anaglyph, but then have buttons that could generate (or at least display) cross-eye or flicker gif versions. Hmmm.....

Posted by: RoverDriver Sep 4 2012, 03:05 PM

I'm stereo blind, so none of the proposed methods do anything for me. On the other hand I do see stereo if I can change the virtual viewing position. MER images have been the first things that made me say I wish I could see stereo.

Paolo

Posted by: fredk Sep 4 2012, 03:10 PM

Interesting thought, Emily. To work best, you'd want to upload individual L/R frames in some standard format (side-by-side or mpo or whatever). Then convert to whatever other format. If instead you uploaded anaglyphs, you might end up with "leakage" from one frame to the other because the jpeg encoding of anaglyph colours doesn't work perfectly, so the L/R frames can't be recovered perfectly. (Note to Stereophotomaker anaglyph makers: check "no compression ghosting" when saving to improve the separation of red/green colours, at the expense of larger filesize.)

Adding to the flicker gif point, there are two very different kinds of cross-eyed (or parallel). Those shrunk very small, so you can fuse them as is, or those saved as full-res "side-by-side" images, for viewing in software such as Stereophotomaker. I'd suggest anyone posting such images to post them at full resolution (filesize permitting). Then the viewer can choose between shrinking them down to be able to fuse them as is, or viewing them full-res in Stereophotomaker.

I can view anything but mpo. But in practice, when I'm looking at new images, I always view cross-eyed in Stereophotomaker. Set "side-by-side" mode, set the window as wide as you can fuse the L/R frames, set to 100% scale, and then you can view any image at full resolution, but you'll have to pan across with your mouse, which is easy. The ability to discern details is far better than anaglyphs in my view. Though I agree anaglyphs are superior for taking in a wide view.

Anyway, I almost always post as anaglyph, so it's good to see the majority liking that format.

Paolo: so do flicker gifs give you any sense of depth?

Posted by: Adam Hurcewicz Sep 4 2012, 05:10 PM

I like animation but not in gif format but avi or swf. In cross-eye I have problem from resolution of the image so red-blue anaglyph is better.

Posted by: RoverDriver Sep 4 2012, 05:49 PM

Yes, but it is inferred from occlusions and relative apparent motion. That is, I get a sense of if one object is closer or farther from my eyes but not relative size or distance ie: object A is closer than object B but not A is twice as close as B.

Paolo

Posted by: David S. Sep 4 2012, 06:49 PM

As a complete lurker who's been enjoying this incredible place for many years now, I've never been able to see any 3D from the cross-eyed stereos that have been posted, I know what to do but my eyes just won't, and the headaches, my god the headaches... So anaglyphs are always welcomed !

Posted by: centsworth_II Sep 4 2012, 09:35 PM

I like the flicker gifs, gave up on trying the cross-eye, and for some reason (inertia) have yet to try red/green glasses. So that's one great thing I have to look forward to in the future.

Posted by: ngunn Sep 4 2012, 09:58 PM

I should say so.

Posted by: stewjack Sep 4 2012, 10:03 PM

Given that the stereo effect drops-off with distance, when viewing both anaglyphs and flicker gifs - I don't get much of that information myself!

Jack

Posted by: PDP8E Sep 4 2012, 10:05 PM

I am stereo blind (only one eye) so animated gifs (or equiv) have always been my preferred way to view pairs

Posted by: ngunn Sep 4 2012, 10:11 PM

I really like these too, and the fact that everyone can appreciate them is a big factor so they get my vote.

Posted by: walfy Sep 5 2012, 05:40 AM

Another option are "piku-piku," such as found here: http://www.start3d.com/en/2454477057/0001/3302572222991330

They usually don't work when the start3d.com website renders them. But when they work they can be great, and you can view them in color. My only complaint is that the website shrinks the images way down in size.

Posted by: Explorer1 Sep 5 2012, 06:19 AM

Nice find walfy, those work too!

Posted by: RoverDriver Sep 5 2012, 07:30 AM

OK, that I can see in 3D. I can also see 3D from holograms but only if I move my head.

Paolo

Posted by: Reckless Sep 5 2012, 08:03 AM

Hi all

Flicker gif for me a' la Jam Butty's work the rest sadly don't work.
Roy F

Posted by: ilbasso Sep 5 2012, 02:43 PM

For quick looks, it's so much easier to pick up my handing red-blue glasses lying next to my keyboard. I recently had cataract surgery, and now am permanently far-sighted. I haven't yet found the right combination of reading glasses/distance to monitor position that allows me to see cross-eye photos.

Posted by: TheAnt Sep 5 2012, 03:31 PM

Flicker gif's all the way for me.

The x-eye gives me a headache also. I can do it, but not worth the negative side effect.

Posted by: chris Sep 5 2012, 04:09 PM

For myself, flicker gifs are fine for a very short while. If I look too close or for too long I start to get nauseous. Despite the fact that I can't find my red-blue
glasses since I moved, it's anaglyphs for me every time.

Chris

Posted by: dvandorn Sep 5 2012, 06:03 PM

My biggest issue with anaglyphs is that the red-blue glasses you can find out there are very cheaply made, with fragile and easily scratched cellophane lenses. While still basically usable, my glasses leave me looking, at times, at a red-blue blur.

I think I'd like anaglyphs a lot more if there was a really easy way to get the cheap glasses in bulk (just discard when they get all scratched up), or to get a sturdier, more scratch-resistant pair.

-the other Doug

Posted by: ilbasso Sep 5 2012, 07:11 PM

http://www.amazon.com/Pairs-Cyan-Paper-3D-Glasses/dp/B0039GGZ3I/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1346872088&sr=8-6&keywords=3-d+glasses for $5.99.

There are also many other styles on Amazon - just search for 3D glasses.

Posted by: Eyesonmars Sep 5 2012, 09:28 PM

On my iPad, which is what I use most of the time, the images from curiosity are quite dark even with the brightness turned up ... And viewing the analglyths thru red-green glasses further darkens them so that I can't make out much at all.

So I much prefer the flickergifs

I know next to nothing about 3-d imaging, but I don't see flickergifs as an option in the poll.

Posted by: ups Sep 7 2012, 05:26 AM

Flicker Gifs are my favorites as well. Is the current movie type 3d with the tinted glass any closer to being an option instead of anaglyths?

Posted by: ups Sep 8 2012, 01:15 PM

The best thing about flicker gifs is you can make just about anything look 3D (not my work).