WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,624 Posts
I did a fair bit of stereo work, the page you linked to is a good primer too. Cross-eye type stereoscopic pairs works best if the individual image is quite large, otherwise parallel viewing would be much more comfortable. The problem with close-up stereo is that the amount of sideway movement needs to be carefully calculated, otherwise the depth would turn out to be too exaggerated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,620 Posts
Seele is right, I've tried some 3D photos and video for my website and the "parallax effect" is a problem when trying to take close-ups. A 3D photo is simply two lenses, either in the same camera or two cameras, that are placed about 140 mm apart -- the distance between human eyes. Then the software converts it into 3D, and there are several different 3D options one can choose.

But unless you have a 3D ready monitor and until there's a true standard for 3D photos and video, you'll have to use red/cyan eyeglasses or other methods like the cross-eye method to view the images.

Even then, the parallax problem will always be an issue for close-ups and I don't see how to get around it at this point, you can't take a close-up of a watch and have it in 3D, or at least I haven't been able to do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,624 Posts
Sodiac,

Producing stereoscopic pairs placed side-by-side is easy enough, but as distance decreases, you can run into problems: if the inter-lens distance remains the same as that between the human eyes, the closer the subject distance, the odder it gets. Imagine you hold a small cube at arm's length with one face facing you, you can see it in stereo quite well. But if you keep moving it closer to you, you will reach a point where it looks very wonky: the right eye sees the right face and the left the left face, and the one facing you cannot be seen at all... and you are really cockeyed!

So for close-up work you need to reduce inter-lens distance to eliminate this severe cock-eye situation. But this brings another problem: say if you reduce the distance to one quarter, the resultant stereoscopic effect would be the same as if you got hit by the "Honey I shrunk the kids" machine and got shrunk to a quarter of your natural size, so the subject would appear much bigger than what it is.

There are many factors involved in stereoscopic photography, and some of them are even scientific! That makes it intriguing, interesting and yet can be frustrating too. If you have a camera that can focus really close, it is probably worth a try.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
It would be cool if someone could make 3D images on their watches in cross eye-3D (3D-effect without glasses)

9 Crazy Cross Eye 3D Photography Images and How to Make Them

Some watch images with a "realistic deep" would be cool.

Hello!

Please try a parallel peep at my 3D photo of a Tao watch:



I will upload more 3D photos as they are taken and if they are not too crappy. :)

Try to avoid operating heavy machinery and brain surgery whilst decoding the above photo. ;-)

Cheers!

T.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
Hello!

Please try a parallel peep at my 3D photo of a Tao watch:
Somehow it's not "3D" enough from what I can see. Maybe it would also be better if you could remove the black bar because it's too close to the resultant "3D image".

Nice work though I hope I could see more :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,624 Posts
Actually the 3D effect is a bit too great; the left side of the watch case sticks out so much that it looks twisted. Reducing the distance between the two pictures would improve somewhat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Thank you for your comments.

Please peep at my next effort.

I call it: 2 modded Seikos.

2%u00252520modded%2520Seikos.jpg

Cheers!

=========

PS. Easiest way to "peep" at this 3D photo is on an iPhone. It's light and handy and easy to tilt, shift, and adjust size and distance.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top