Once again the 3D works nicely and leaves us with a neat view of the gnarly growth of the tree. My only nit in this case are the almost blown out skies in the back. Not sure if there is anything you could really do with this under the circumstances given the huge dynamic rage required to tame this.
The tree itself is a neat shot - thanks for sharing it
I love the way that in the black and white shot you don't notice the four dark purple leaves that sit in the fork of the lowest branch until you go stereo and then there they are, sitting a few inches in front of the branch.
I had never tried this before, but read the instructions at your link, and gave it a whirl. It took a couple of tries, but I got it! After that, I could get the 3D effect every time.
what is the offset distance from image one to image two? it seems all the images posted are a bit to far apart. The movement is very subtle and should make "stereoizing" the images when crossing less intense, with out lessening the 3d effect.
patrickphoto wrote:
what is the offset distance from image one to image two? it seems all the images posted are a bit to far apart. The movement is very subtle and should make "stereoizing" the images when crossing less intense, with out lessening the 3d effect.
My portrait was done with about 3-4 inches of offset because that was as close as I could get the lens axes with a pair of 5D's. The prisms were touching. Ideally separation should be about 2.5 inches, which is normal separation for human eyes. A pair of compact cameras ought to make that possible.
Also, the further the subject is away. The more you have to shift from 1st to 2nd shot. Rule of thumb that I learned was if it's 20 feet and beyond, shift 1 foot. Closer than that means less shift. macro for instance is very little shift. Something a couple hundreds yards away might require maybe 5 feet or somewhere around there, providing your not going for close FG detail. A factor may be a zoom lens as well.
John Richter wrote:
Also, the further the subject is away. The more you have to shift from 1st to 2nd shot. Rule of thumb that I learned was if it's 20 feet and beyond, shift 1 foot. Closer than that means less shift. macro for instance is very little shift. Something a couple hundreds yards away might require maybe 5 feet or somewhere around there, providing your not going for close FG detail. A factor may be a zoom lens as well.
Focal length makes no difference, only parallax defines the strength of 3D. For a realistic 3D view you should never separate the cameras by more than 2.5 inches or so. Any further separation will produce an exaggerated effect, no matter how far away the subject is. However, with distant subjects we don't see very strong 3D with our eyes, because the parallax effect is so small. Consequently, for distant subjects you can 'improve' on human 3D vision by separating the eyes further, but it's not realistic, from a human point of view.
I'm really bummed. Had lens implants a few years ago and opted for the mono-vision approach: one for near sight the other at regular vision. It's generally pretty useful like no glasses for reading and such but makes this sort of 3D impossible. Doesn't matter what I do with my eyes, nothing ever goes 3D
