Realistic 3-D Pictures - nothing needed except your eyes!

Discussion Open Forum
1

Somewhat cool:

…

2

Is there an earthquake? :astonished:

3

…welcome to my world…

Quite an amazing effect.

4

Hmmm…wonder how they do that. My guess: 2 or 3 shots each at a very slightly different angle, then cycle them in an animated gif. Anyone know if this is right?

5

Seems like there are just two shots to me.

6

no

more

acid

7

Yep. I heard they want to do this faster (so it doesn’t stutter) and eventually display 3-D movies this way.

8

Kewl!

9

They’re jpegs which makes this even more curious… :astonished:

I always thought the jpeg format had nor provision for animation.

Still very, very cool :notworthy:

10

The are actually GIFs. (If you save them to your harddisc you can see the file name, e.g. “1.gif”.) No idea why they are linked as JPG …

11

FireFox tries to force 1.jpg, but typing the name 1.gif and saving works… In ImageReady it shows two fames…

This has whetted my curiosity. The principal seems simple enough. Two pics at slightly different angles…

12

Yep. I heard they want to do this faster (so it doesn’t stutter) and eventually display 3-D movies this way.[/quote]I don’t think that would work. As they are, the rate at which the two images are swapped is just on the borders of persistence of vision. But too much faster and there would be full persistence of vision, meaning that you’d just see two images at the same time.

I saw a webpage once that explained how to make these pictures. IIRC it said that getting the rate correct was crucial.

13

Just been playing around with the first picture in ImageReady… The frame rate does have an affect but even at low rates (2fps) the 3D effect is still there but not as crisp…

14

Just been playing around with the first picture in ImageReady… The frame rate does have an affect but even at low rates (2fps) the 3D effect is still there but not as crisp…[/quote]What about higher rates though? I predict that you’ll just see two superimposed images.

15

I can set the frame delay to 0s and ImageReady updates the images as quickly as it can but still not fast enough to see what you’re predicting… (Note, in the original images the frame delay is 0s)

I guess that due to monitor refresh rates I wouldn’t be able to get much higher than 60fpf (85 if the monitor supports it) anyway…