Some 3D photography of mine

[dragonblade71]

Here's a sample of my 3D photographs in anaglyph format. For viewing, you'll need a pair of red / blue glasses - these can be found in special editions of books, magazines and comics and other print media. The 3D glasses that are handed out at the movies are usually of the polarised type and will not work with these photos!

[/url][/IMG]

[/url][/IMG]

[/url][/IMG]

[/url][/IMG]

[/url][/IMG]

 

[Venari]

So now I need to buy a pair.

Are stereographic (sp?) 3d images possible?

 

[dragonblade71]

So now I need to buy a pair.

Hehe. Check eBay for books, comics and magazines that come with the red / cyan glasses. Often, they can be had for just a few dollars and they're also useful for viewing other 3D images on the internet. I have noticed there are some eBay sellers that sell bundles of red / cyan glasses on their own but Ive noticed they're usually of lower quality - ie introduce ghosting etc when viewing the images. The glasses that come packaged with books etc are often of better quality.

Are stereographic (sp?) 3d images possible?

Hmmm...I'm not familiar with the term 'stereographic' but 3D photography is also known as stereo photography.

 

[Venari]

I probably had the term wrong, I was working off memory.

Lately 3D movies have been coming out with clear glasses, instead of the red/blue ones.

 

[ballpythonteen]

i like them i had a pair from final destinations 3D such a funny movie i like the plant one

 

[dragonblade71]

i like them i had a pair from final destinations 3D such a funny movie i like the plant one

I'm glad you liked them! Don't think Ive seen that movie....

 

[Venari]

When i went to see FD 3D I was given clear glasses, not red/blue ones. Those work on these pics? If so, I'll have to go see whatever 3D movie is out now.

 

[ballpythonteen]

final destination 3d was before the newer 3d it uses the red blue also its not that great of a movie not like the first but its ok i think its funny, anyway oddly enought coraline uses like a magenta and green,

 

[Venari]

Might have been red/blue in your area, but here I was given the clear ones:?

 

[dragonblade71]

When i went to see FD 3D I was given clear glasses, not red/blue ones. Those work on these pics?

Unfortunately not. The clear ones are polarised glasses. Most 3D movies at the cinema use the polarised system. Only very occasionally will you see a 3D anaglyph movie on the big screen (ones that make use of the coloured glasses.) I think Spy Kids and The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl may have been screened in anaglyph format.

---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 AM ----------

Venari, this is what you need...only $2.99!

http://cgi.ebay.com/3D-DINOSAURS-Ed...6?pt=US_Texbook_Education&hash=item27b8c406b0

 

[TomM]

Hmmm...I'm not familiar with the term 'stereographic' but 3D photography is also known as stereo photography.

Stereographic photos are just called stereograms. I used to take a bunch of these. What you have to do is look at the two pictures and slightly cross your eyes to make the two pictures meet. If you've done it correctly it should look like three pictures, the one on the left is blurry, the one in the middle is in focus and 3D, and the one on the right is also blurry. Here are just two examples of my stereograms (the flower one is much easier to see, so if you are having trouble with the mantis just go to the next one):

 

[dragonblade71]

Stereographic photos are just called stereograms. I used to take a bunch of these. What you have to do is look at the two pictures and slightly cross your eyes to make the two pictures meet.

Ah...on a 3D forum I frequent, some folks refer to those as cross-eye pictures. Yea, took me a while to get the hang of them - when I was first trying them in the past. And good work with your examples. Handy when an insect stays still long enough for two exposures! And good depth on the flower, and at the same time exhibiting shallow depth of field.

 

[TomM]

Ah...on a 3D forum I frequent, some folks refer to those as cross-eye pictures. Yea, took me a while to get the hang of them - when I was first trying them in the past. And good work with your examples. Handy when an insect stays still long enough for two exposures! And good depth on the flower, and at the same time exhibiting shallow depth of field.

Thanks. I need to start taking these again, it's probably been a good 3 years since I tried making any.

 

[Travis K]

Stereographic photos are just called stereograms. I used to take a bunch of these. What you have to do is look at the two pictures and slightly cross your eyes to make the two pictures meet. If you've done it correctly it should look like three pictures, the one on the left is blurry, the one in the middle is in focus and 3D, and the one on the right is also blurry. Here are just two examples of my stereograms (the flower one is much easier to see, so if you are having trouble with the mantis just go to the next one):

I love these, they come so easy for me. How do you make these?

 

[TomM]

I love these, they come so easy for me. How do you make these?

To simply put it, I am unable to explain it over the internet and not in person so give me a few minutes to find a good website that can explain what I'm thinking.

---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------

http://www.mineralarts.com/stereo/howto.html

It makes it seem sort of difficult, but I can't really find a better one yet.

 

[Travis K]

To simply put it, I am unable to explain it over the internet and not in person so give me a few minutes to find a good website that can explain what I'm thinking.

---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------

http://www.mineralarts.com/stereo/howto.html

It makes it seem sort of difficult, but I can't really find a better one yet.

So you essentially take the second pic at a slightly different angle?

 

[TomM]

I FOUND IT!.....Some awesome nature photographer from England sent this to me 5 years ago when I first started photography:

Cross-eye stereograms:

They are in fact easy to do.
basically you take one shot of the subject and then move the camera sideways approx 1/30th of the subject distance (for macro shots this around 1-2cms) and take another pic. For flowers I use a tripod to do this and just move the tripod but you could do it on a macrostage if you have one.
You may need to recentre the subject after moving. Take the shots into PS and crop and align them - I normally crop one, copy it and paste it on the other and adjust the opacity of the layer so I can see both shots- and crop around the layer- then delete the layer.
You can then check the stereo content by putting the pics side by side- remember to create a cross-eye stereogram you have to swap over the L&R pics as taken so they are on R & L side. You can in fact do all of this in a neat piece of freeware called stereophotomaker (just google for it). It's handy to have a pair of anaglyph glasses for this (those coloured stereo pic viewer glasses).
Frequently when I'm doing flower closeup shots I also use focus stacking to increase the focus depth. This just means I take several shots to cover the focal depth of the subject for each half of the stereo pic and then use combinez5 (again freeware) to stack the images before starting the alignment process above.

The more aligned you make the shots (size, rotation and vertical alignment) the easier they are to view and the less likely to give you a headache trying.
The other "rule" which I frequently break is that if you imagine you are looking at the 3-D picture through a window (the frame around the edge) you should not have any objects touching the frame as this makes it difficult to view. You are allowed to have things coming through the window as long as they don't touch the sides. You adjust this apparent behind the window depth in stereophotomaker but it's to do with the pic spacing and view overlap.
If you can actually view the pictures they are great fun to do yourself.

- LordV

 

[dragonblade71]

basically you take one shot of the subject and then move the camera sideways approx 1/30th of the subject distance

Yea, this is the technique that I used for shooting the anaglyphs in my opening post. I have a macro slide bar attached to the tripod which was used to slide the camera from left to right between exposures. Regarding distance, if the nearest object in the scene is 4 feet away, then I would shift the camera 4cm. If the nearest object is 8 feet away, then I would shift the camera 8 cm etc. Travis, make sure that nothing moves inbetween exposures. In other words, you're pretty much limited to still subjects like statues, architecture etc with this shooting technique. Even so, watch out for moving clouds or a breeze blowing leaves on a tree!

With regards to shooting relatively close subject matter, never shift the camera a considerable distance between shots as this can create eye strain when viewing the results in 3D. If the subject is close, always keep the baseline short! Another thing with shooting close subjects in 3D, make sure that the background is only a short distance away. Having objects very close and very far in the same shot is another potential for eye strain.

Oh and the next time that you're in a plane, you could try shooting some stereos through the window. In this case, you're relying on the plane to do the movement while you keep perfectly still snapping frames. Try taking several shots in quick succession and then choose the best two. I did a similar thing with that last anaglyph of mine I posted - shooting from a moving car. You can get quite impressive depth at those sort of long distances.