Not-so-Novel 3D technique

[cKleinhuis]

If you use ultrafracrtal I guess you will have to rotate the camera AND change the target coordinates

i do not really get it working in uf, i changed the x coordinate of the target by a small amount, and tried changing the rotation
of the camera ...

isnt it more like, keeping the focal point the same, and just move the camera ?! on a sphere around that point ?!

hard to achieve with current parameters i think , but an easy example would be great!

[kram1032]

I don't really see how the "stable" point (the axis of rotation) is in the middle of the depth here but I agree withTrifox

And yup Trifox, same focus, camera around a sphere but actually on a circle parallel to the "horizon" of the current view... (I guess, tilted views wouldn't work as well...)

[bib]

Trifox you're right. It's not not that easy using Dave's UF's formula to correctly set up parameters to get the desired effect. Here is what I got after a few minutes try. Could be better, but I prefer doing .avi

[cKleinhuis]

i think just 2 frames of animation are enough, i like this method to create some fancifull depth images

so, you are just working with camera angle x and focal point x ?
or twiggle i the x/y/z  .


anyway, that last image if bib looks more like rotating ... but nice parallax

[bib]

i think just 2 frames of animation are enough, i like this method to create some fancifull depth images

so, you are just working with camera angle x and focal point x ?
or twiggle i the x/y/z  .


anyway, that last image if bib looks more like rotating ... but nice parallax

I just played with camera rotation. Hence the rotation effect and why I'm not satisfied. Anyway, not a big deal...

[Timeroot]

Cool pictures. Has anyone tried moving the camera in a "circle", rather than a "line"? That is, when you rotate the camera around the central axis, you move it along a great circle of the sphere centered on the focus. But you could move the camera in very small circles on that sphere instead - one a bit from the left, then one a bit from the top, then one a bit from the right, then one a bit from the bottom, repeat. It might give slightly more depth perception, albeit being more dizzying. 

[Tglad]

I just discovered 'start3D' which creates the in-between frames for you. Just tried it. It has some artefacts, but its brand new so maybe it'll get a bit better.

http://www.start3d.com/en/3809136018/0001/1176401090250029

Looks like you can also embed it into web pages.

[kram1032]

there it works pretty good
It actually looks kind of 3D

[LesPaul]

I'd love to see some of these in "cross-eye" stereo.  That's a really simple way to get a very convincing 3D effect. 

[David Makin]

I'd love to see some of these in "cross-eye" stereo.  That's a really simple way to get a very convincing 3D effect. 

I've never been able to get that to work for me

[kram1032]

For me, that worked in younger ages. Now it doesn't for some reason.

However, it might be a good idea to mix multiple ways to enhance 3Dimensionality.
That is, movement like this tumbling together with cross-eye view and other things.

[Tglad]

Well if you look at the link, you can choose multiple ways at the same time, e.g. cross-eyed and movement.
You just upload a single image for each eye and it lets you uses wobble, and either cross eye, parallel eye, or different coloured glasses in combination.

I'm sure that once polarised 3d displays become more popular there will be a button for viewing them in this format.
I'm kind of tempted to take 2 shots with every photo I take and upload them to here, but there are a few problems with this site, it seems to only display the pics in low res, its interpolation has bugs, and the 'buy' button worries me, too commercial already.