Stereograph Of Nebula Options

[Harry]

The following pictures are the synthesized stereographs for Eagle Nebula (originally taken by HST). Please view them with parallel eyes or crossed eyes.
For other planetary stereographs, visit;

http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereographe...bula/nebula.htm

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[malgar]

Hi Harry, I like very much your 3D works. I would like to visit the page that explains how to do that but it doesn't work..
How can I view this page?
http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereographer/stereograph.htm

Bye,
Ale.

[dilo]

Ciao, Malgar . Some stereograms are really stunning and I'm intrigued by the method... congratulations, Harry!
About link malfunction, using windows, I'm able to see the page in the link, even if I'm required to insert my email adress in order to avoid spam (and t hen appear a "Comment/Enquiry Form" to be filled).
However, also in the link no clear explaination is done about method to extract/assign depth information... even if not said, visualization method should be "parallel eyes" but this limits images sizes!
I do not easily visualize parallel eyes stereograms and I prefere crossed-eys... using this technique, nebulae/galaxies are realistic because luminous (closest) stars appear in the foreground. So I suspect they are wrongly showed in background in the original "parallel eyes" version... Harry, is possible to correct it?

[Harry]

Hi Harry, I like very much your 3D works. I would like to visit the page that explains how to do that but it doesn't work..
How can I view this page?
http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereographer/stereograph.htm

Bye,
Ale.

Oh, sorry. Probably some Javascript checker had worked on your browser when visiting my website. Is it available to make that checker off temporally?

[Harry]

Ciao, Malgar  . Some stereograms are really stunning and I'm intrigued by the method... congratulations, Harry!
About link malfunction, using windows, I'm able to see the page in the link, even if I'm required to insert my email adress in order to avoid spam (and t hen appear a "Comment/Enquiry Form" to be filled).
However, also in the link no clear explaination is done about method to extract/assign depth information... even if not said, visualization method should be "parallel eyes" but this limits images sizes! 
I do not easily visualize parallel eyes stereograms and I prefere crossed-eys... using this technique, nebulae/galaxies are realistic because luminous (closest) stars appear in the foreground. So I suspect they are wrongly showed in background in the original "parallel eyes" version... Harry, is possible to correct it?

Probably the lack of explanations has made visitors confuse. Surely I didn't mentioned whether "parallel eyes" or "crossed eyes" should be applied for in the website. Actually some of pictures in the attached gallery are for "parallel eyes" and some others are for "crossed eyes"! I should have noted which method is applied for each pictures...

By the way I attached another synthesized stereographs (software: Stereographer, focus depth:=2, slide level:=3). Please view them with parallel eyes or crossed eyes you prefer.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Bob Shaw]

Harry:

I can do free-view cross-eyed quite easily, I need a viewer for the parallel chaps though!

I looked at your website, but I have to say that I'm slightly at a loss as to how images at infinity can be turned into such effective 3D representations. The nebulae images look really, er, real, yet the information required for them to be real images is plainly unavailable to us.

You've not got a Police Box parked in the street, have you?

Bob Shaw

[dilo]

...
By the way I attached another synthesized stereograph. Do you see it with parallel eyes or crossed eyes? (for me it is better or realistic to see it with parallel eyes.)

I tried both methods...
Also for this image, I prefere crossed eyes view for two reasons, both already mentioned: 1) Stars look closer than Horse nebula, as they should; 2) I'm not confortable with parallel eyes method, and I cannot perfectly focus in this way .
Generally speaking, parallel eyes give the sensation to see an infinitely distant object (which is a clear benefit for these astronomical subjects) but have a great handicap related to the small images dimensions needed to see it (distance between images centers shouldn't exceed inter-ocular spacing, in fact I had to rescale them on the screen of my monitor..).
I suggest you to split your beatiful gallery in two sections, based on the method to be used.
Anyway, we all are asking the same thing to you: how did you extracted so "realistic" and detailed depth informations from original images???
The result is so amazing that I'm seriously thinking some kind of magic!

[ElkGroveDan]

Do you see it with parallel eyes or crossed eyes? (for me it is better or realistic to see it with parallel eyes.)

I'm waiting for the analglyph.....

[dilo]

I'm waiting for the analglyph.....

Hope Harry do not mind if I post this "anaglyphed" version of one stereogram:

Attached File(s)

 nebula.bmp ( 121.97K ) Number of downloads: 394

 

[Harry]

I tried both methods...
Also for this image, I prefere crossed eyes view for two reasons, both already mentioned: 1) Stars look closer than Horse nebula, as they should; 2) I'm not confortable with parallel eyes method, and I cannot perfectly focus in this way  .
Generally speaking, parallel eyes give the sensation to see an infinitely distant object (which is a clear benefit for these astronomical subjects) but have a great handicap related to the small images dimensions needed to see it (distance between images centers shouldn't exceed inter-ocular spacing, in fact I had to rescale them on the screen of my monitor..).
I suggest you to split your beatiful gallery in two sections, based on the method to be used.
Anyway, we all are asking the same thing to you: how did you extracted so "realistic" and detailed depth informations from original images???
The result is so amazing that I'm seriously thinking some kind of magic! 

I found some people prefer crossed eyes view and some other people don't. So I think I should prepare two types of stereograph, then he or she can choose parallel eyes view or crossed eyes view which he or she prefer. I modified previous my posts by adding stereographs for different viewing method.

The method I employed is for detecting the deviation from focal point on each spot of the original picture (for detail of that method, please visit: Focus Corrector.) However it can not distinguish whether that deviation is in front of or behind the focal point. Therefore the viewing method (i.e. parallel eyes or crossed eyes) applied for the stereograph depends on whether the focal point is in the foreground or background of original picture. That's why the stereographs for parallel eyes and crossed eyes are mixed promiscuously in my gallery. Following your suggestion, I'll modify my gallery by adding stereographs for different viewing method.

[Harry]

Hope Harry do not mind if I post this "anaglyphed" version of one stereogram:

Nice anaglyph! I also have made the program for creating anaglyph, but yours is quite better than mine.

The following stereographs are for the part of Keyhole Nebula. Please view them with parallel eyes or crossed eyes you prefer.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Harry]

Perhaps someone may think measuring the deviation from focal point is meaningless for astronomical objects since their focal length from telescope is regarded as infinity. However as shown in the following stereographs of clouds on earth synthesized by Stereographer (please view them with parallel eyes or crossed eyes which you prefer), we can see those clouds perspectively even their focal length is almost infinity for our eyes. Namely our eyes are thought to recognize 3-dimensional feature of object without perceiving the difference of geometrical focal length.

Also I attached the synthesized stereographs of Orion Nebula (please view them with parallel eyes or crossed eyes which you prefer.)

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Harry]

The following images are the stereograph for Orionis Nebula. The original image was taken by HST.
(view: parallel eyes)

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Bob Shaw]

Perhaps someone may think measuring the deviation from focal point is meaningless for astronomical objects since their focal length from telescope is regarded as infinity. However as shown in the following stereographs of clouds on earth synthesized by Stereographer (please view them with parallel eyes or crossed eyes which you prefer), we can see those clouds perspectively even their focal length is almost infinity for our eyes. Namely our eyes are thought to recognize 3-dimensional feature of object without perceiving the difference of geometrical focal length.

Also I attached the synthesized stereographs of Orion Nebula (please view them with parallel eyes or crossed eyes which you prefer.)

Harry:

I've (oddly enough) wanted to make 3D images of clouds for years, but I confess that the only methods I could come up with involved several cameras at different locations. I can't for the life of me see how real stereo images can be generated from (in Terrestrial terms) any objects which are within the hyperfocal distance(s) of a single image taken with one lens. By definition, they are are on one plane!

It may be that physiological tricks can be played with images which will persuade us that depth is present, but I don't think that they represent the actual 3D structures, however interesting the results appear!

Bob Shaw

[Rob Pinnegar]

...I can't for the life of me see how real stereo images can be generated from (in Terrestrial terms) any objects which are within the hyperfocal distance(s) of a single image taken with one lens.  By definition, they are are on one plane!

There's no way we can get _real_ stereo images, of course. My gut-instinct guess is that the closest we could get would probably be Proxima Centauri and Alpha Centauri A/B, using photos taken over the course of several years. Even for this example, though, the mutual revolution of A and B during the time lapse between images would probably spoil the effect (unless we waited exactly one A/B orbital period).

However, it should be possible to manipulate images to artifically incorporate information about distance, by moving pixels around. That's probably what is being done here.