Talk:941: Depth Perception - Revision history

92.23.2.228: Blitzed the unsignednesses...

2025-07-01T21:42:06Z

Blitzed the unsignednesses...

2605:59C0:2204:F708:DD9D:2188:7A5:68D7: I commented

2025-07-01T20:29:06Z

I commented

42.book.addict at 22:00, 5 November 2024

2024-11-05T22:00:45Z

172.69.170.56 at 22:26, 1 April 2021

2021-04-01T22:26:26Z

162.158.107.61 at 00:00, 27 November 2019

2019-11-27T00:00:44Z

172.68.142.161 at 14:42, 26 October 2019

2019-10-26T14:42:24Z

DuplexFields: messed up wiki syntax

2019-10-04T01:28:17Z

messed up wiki syntax

DuplexFields: added an example stereo cloud picture to the Talk

2019-10-04T01:26:02Z

added an example stereo cloud picture to the Talk

Dgbrt: Please sign your comments.

2018-10-01T20:52:07Z

Please sign your comments.

162.158.78.10: Adding my two cents on binocular vision as a biology student.

2018-10-01T01:02:51Z

Adding my two cents on binocular vision as a biology student.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 :::: You're right. But of course you wouldn't need a 90-degree flyby for this. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.43|141.101.104.43]] 16:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
-An updated solution would be to put the two stabilised cameras on quadracopters which are coded to remain a set distance apart.  When you want to look left/right it would take a while for the pair of drones to rotate around their centre point but not too long..... Then you could also get a perspective from the height of a giant (up to 400ft https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=22615) and with their degree of parallax (from whatever value of height and eye spacing you choose). {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.225}}
+An updated solution would be to put the two stabilised cameras on quadracopters which are coded to remain a set distance apart.  When you want to look left/right it would take a while for the pair of drones to rotate around their centre point but not too long..... Then you could also get a perspective from the height of a giant (up to 400ft https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=22615) and with their degree of parallax (from whatever value of height and eye spacing you choose). {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.225|00:45, 26 June 2014}}
 :This is a very cool project indeed! Some hardcore image stabilizing software would be required too, since you would get nauseous if the two images weren't perfectly aligned at all times. But this setup is the only one I could think of that would enable you to perceive the view from the last frame. [[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 08:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
-::That idea would probably work but at one point, the quadcoptors would have issues flying any higher which would limit the view.
+::That idea would probably work but at one point, the quadcoptors would have issues flying any higher which would limit the view. {{unsigned ip|162.158.107.61|00:00, 27 November 2019}}
 Look at this in stereo mode: http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar and cross your eyes so you see three images, then hold your hands up so you only see the one, then...
 I forget... [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 12:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 Or you could ride in an airplane. Or stand on a mountain. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.174|173.245.50.174]] 19:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
-:That would defeat the point entirely. The distance between the two viewpoints is what provides the increased perspective, not the height of the observer. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.84|141.101.80.84]] 21:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
+:That would defeat the point entirely. The distance between the two viewpoints is what provides the increased perspective, not the height of the observer. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.84|141.101.80.84]] 21:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
-: using a plane isn't a substitute for this, but there's no reason adding the element of flight has to defeat it ''entirely'': you could put one cam on each wing tip & get maybe the coolest effect of all..
+: using a plane isn't a substitute for this, but there's no reason adding the element of flight has to defeat it ''entirely'': you could put one cam on each wing tip & get maybe the coolest effect of all.. {{unsigned|00N8|22:40, 22 January 2018}}
 Likely the reason the right image is shown on the left and vise versa is that there are two ways to fuse stereo images.  Either Walleyed, right-to-rght, or Crosseyed, right-to-left.  Doing it the wrong way may result in concave faces and other aberrations. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.125|162.158.255.125]] 15:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-Clouds are fractal, small ones up close look the same as big ones far away. So I don't think this would look as spectacular as imagined. {{unsigned ip|162.158.39.209}}
+Clouds are fractal, small ones up close look the same as big ones far away. So I don't think this would look as spectacular as imagined. {{unsigned ip|162.158.39.209|20:48, 30 April 2016}}
-The thing is that our brains only associate the binocular/3D effect with items that are relatively close, and tend to judge sizes accordingly.  If something appears 3D to us, we judge it to be a certain distance away (a key function of binocular vision) and from that we also get a rough estimate of its size.  That's why if you see something like a star destroyer in 3D in the movie theater, it looks like something the size of a bus hanging up in the general vicinity of the screen.  It doesn't look like something miles long, because big things look flat when they look that size.  I believe this way of looking at clouds would give a similar effect.  The clouds might look 3D, but they'd also just seem closer and smaller, rather than giving you a real sense of their size. {{unsigned ip|162.158.78.10}}
+The thing is that our brains only associate the binocular/3D effect with items that are relatively close, and tend to judge sizes accordingly.  If something appears 3D to us, we judge it to be a certain distance away (a key function of binocular vision) and from that we also get a rough estimate of its size.  That's why if you see something like a star destroyer in 3D in the movie theater, it looks like something the size of a bus hanging up in the general vicinity of the screen.  It doesn't look like something miles long, because big things look flat when they look that size.  I believe this way of looking at clouds would give a similar effect.  The clouds might look 3D, but they'd also just seem closer and smaller, rather than giving you a real sense of their size. {{unsigned ip|162.158.78.10|01:02, 1 October 2018}}
 :One way to impress with size is to make sure there's something on the "back wall" to contrast with the foreground. [https://i.redd.it/3watd55xafq31.jpg Here's a crosseye cloud picture] I made from several pictures out an airplane window.  The distance in time between these was one second, according to the EXIF data. Because the foreground cloud is so large, the faraway cloud at the center looks like Randall's "mountains" should.  I should note this is a zoom/crop of a much larger pair of pictures.  [[User:DuplexFields|DuplexFields]] ([[User talk:DuplexFields|talk]]) 01:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
-::I put the above photo on my phone and put it in my google cardboard and it worked super well. Totally amazing.
+::I put the above photo on my phone and put it in my google cardboard and it worked super well. Totally amazing. {{unsigned ip|172.69.170.56|22:26, 1 April 2021}}
-:::How did you manage to put it on cardboard? I'm having difficulties.
+:::How did you manage to put it on cardboard? I'm having difficulties. {{unsigned ip|2605:59c0:2204:f708:dd9d:2188:7a5:68d7|20:29, 1 July 2025}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:29, 1 July 2025
Line 38:		Line 38:

	::I put the above photo on my phone and put it in my google cardboard and it worked super well. Totally amazing.		::I put the above photo on my phone and put it in my google cardboard and it worked super well. Totally amazing.
		+
		+	:::How did you manage to put it on cardboard? I'm having difficulties.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ::That idea would probably work but at one point, the quadcoptors would have issues flying any higher which would limit the view.
 Look at this in stereo mode: http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar and cross your eyes so you see three images, then hold your hands up so you only see the one, then...
-I forget...
+I forget... [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 12:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
-[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 12:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
+I used to do that all the time at one time ... until I got a l...ot of things different to do.. [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 12:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 Stereo aerial pairs of clouds do exist see the Google search: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stereoscopic+aerial+photos+clouds [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 07:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:26, 1 April 2021
Line 40:		Line 40:

	:One way to impress with size is to make sure there's something on the "back wall" to contrast with the foreground. [https://i.redd.it/3watd55xafq31.jpg Here's a crosseye cloud picture] I made from several pictures out an airplane window. The distance in time between these was one second, according to the EXIF data. Because the foreground cloud is so large, the faraway cloud at the center looks like Randall's "mountains" should. I should note this is a zoom/crop of a much larger pair of pictures. [[User:DuplexFields\|DuplexFields]] ([[User talk:DuplexFields\|talk]]) 01:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)		:One way to impress with size is to make sure there's something on the "back wall" to contrast with the foreground. [https://i.redd.it/3watd55xafq31.jpg Here's a crosseye cloud picture] I made from several pictures out an airplane window. The distance in time between these was one second, according to the EXIF data. Because the foreground cloud is so large, the faraway cloud at the center looks like Randall's "mountains" should. I should note this is a zoom/crop of a much larger pair of pictures. [[User:DuplexFields\|DuplexFields]] ([[User talk:DuplexFields\|talk]]) 01:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	::I put the above photo on my phone and put it in my google cardboard and it worked super well. Totally amazing.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 An updated solution would be to put the two stabilised cameras on quadracopters which are coded to remain a set distance apart.  When you want to look left/right it would take a while for the pair of drones to rotate around their centre point but not too long..... Then you could also get a perspective from the height of a giant (up to 400ft https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=22615) and with their degree of parallax (from whatever value of height and eye spacing you choose). {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.225}}
 :This is a very cool project indeed! Some hardcore image stabilizing software would be required too, since you would get nauseous if the two images weren't perfectly aligned at all times. But this setup is the only one I could think of that would enable you to perceive the view from the last frame. [[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 08:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
+::That idea would probably work but at one point, the quadcoptors would have issues flying any higher which would limit the view.
 Look at this in stereo mode: http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar and cross your eyes so you see three images, then hold your hands up so you only see the one, then...
 I forget...

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:28, 4 October 2019
Line 39:		Line 39:
	The thing is that our brains only associate the binocular/3D effect with items that are relatively close, and tend to judge sizes accordingly. If something appears 3D to us, we judge it to be a certain distance away (a key function of binocular vision) and from that we also get a rough estimate of its size. That's why if you see something like a star destroyer in 3D in the movie theater, it looks like something the size of a bus hanging up in the general vicinity of the screen. It doesn't look like something miles long, because big things look flat when they look that size. I believe this way of looking at clouds would give a similar effect. The clouds might look 3D, but they'd also just seem closer and smaller, rather than giving you a real sense of their size. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.78.10}}		The thing is that our brains only associate the binocular/3D effect with items that are relatively close, and tend to judge sizes accordingly. If something appears 3D to us, we judge it to be a certain distance away (a key function of binocular vision) and from that we also get a rough estimate of its size. That's why if you see something like a star destroyer in 3D in the movie theater, it looks like something the size of a bus hanging up in the general vicinity of the screen. It doesn't look like something miles long, because big things look flat when they look that size. I believe this way of looking at clouds would give a similar effect. The clouds might look 3D, but they'd also just seem closer and smaller, rather than giving you a real sense of their size. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.78.10}}

−	:One way to impress with size is to make sure there's something on the "back wall" to contrast with the foreground. [[https://i.redd.it/3watd55xafq31.jpg\|Here's a crosseye cloud picture]] I made from several pictures out an airplane window. The distance in time between these was one second, according to the EXIF data. Because the foreground cloud is so large, the faraway cloud at the center looks like Randall's "mountains" should. I should note this is a zoom/crop of a much larger pair of pictures. [[User:DuplexFields\|DuplexFields]] ([[User talk:DuplexFields\|talk]]) 01:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)	+	:One way to impress with size is to make sure there's something on the "back wall" to contrast with the foreground. [https://i.redd.it/3watd55xafq31.jpg Here's a crosseye cloud picture] I made from several pictures out an airplane window. The distance in time between these was one second, according to the EXIF data. Because the foreground cloud is so large, the faraway cloud at the center looks like Randall's "mountains" should. I should note this is a zoom/crop of a much larger pair of pictures. [[User:DuplexFields\|DuplexFields]] ([[User talk:DuplexFields\|talk]]) 01:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:26, 4 October 2019
Line 38:		Line 38:

	The thing is that our brains only associate the binocular/3D effect with items that are relatively close, and tend to judge sizes accordingly. If something appears 3D to us, we judge it to be a certain distance away (a key function of binocular vision) and from that we also get a rough estimate of its size. That's why if you see something like a star destroyer in 3D in the movie theater, it looks like something the size of a bus hanging up in the general vicinity of the screen. It doesn't look like something miles long, because big things look flat when they look that size. I believe this way of looking at clouds would give a similar effect. The clouds might look 3D, but they'd also just seem closer and smaller, rather than giving you a real sense of their size. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.78.10}}		The thing is that our brains only associate the binocular/3D effect with items that are relatively close, and tend to judge sizes accordingly. If something appears 3D to us, we judge it to be a certain distance away (a key function of binocular vision) and from that we also get a rough estimate of its size. That's why if you see something like a star destroyer in 3D in the movie theater, it looks like something the size of a bus hanging up in the general vicinity of the screen. It doesn't look like something miles long, because big things look flat when they look that size. I believe this way of looking at clouds would give a similar effect. The clouds might look 3D, but they'd also just seem closer and smaller, rather than giving you a real sense of their size. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.78.10}}
		+
		+	:One way to impress with size is to make sure there's something on the "back wall" to contrast with the foreground. [[https://i.redd.it/3watd55xafq31.jpg\|Here's a crosseye cloud picture]] I made from several pictures out an airplane window. The distance in time between these was one second, according to the EXIF data. Because the foreground cloud is so large, the faraway cloud at the center looks like Randall's "mountains" should. I should note this is a zoom/crop of a much larger pair of pictures. [[User:DuplexFields\|DuplexFields]] ([[User talk:DuplexFields\|talk]]) 01:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:52, 1 October 2018
Line 37:		Line 37:
	Clouds are fractal, small ones up close look the same as big ones far away. So I don't think this would look as spectacular as imagined. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.39.209}}		Clouds are fractal, small ones up close look the same as big ones far away. So I don't think this would look as spectacular as imagined. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.39.209}}

−	The thing is that our brains only associate the binocular/3D effect with items that are relatively close, and tend to judge sizes accordingly. If something appears 3D to us, we judge it to be a certain distance away (a key function of binocular vision) and from that we also get a rough estimate of its size. That's why if you see something like a star destroyer in 3D in the movie theater, it looks like something the size of a bus hanging up in the general vicinity of the screen. It doesn't look like something miles long, because big things look flat when they look that size. I believe this way of looking at clouds would give a similar effect. The clouds might look 3D, but they'd also just seem closer and smaller, rather than giving you a real sense of their size.	+	The thing is that our brains only associate the binocular/3D effect with items that are relatively close, and tend to judge sizes accordingly. If something appears 3D to us, we judge it to be a certain distance away (a key function of binocular vision) and from that we also get a rough estimate of its size. That's why if you see something like a star destroyer in 3D in the movie theater, it looks like something the size of a bus hanging up in the general vicinity of the screen. It doesn't look like something miles long, because big things look flat when they look that size. I believe this way of looking at clouds would give a similar effect. The clouds might look 3D, but they'd also just seem closer and smaller, rather than giving you a real sense of their size. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.78.10}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:02, 1 October 2018
Line 36:		Line 36:

	Clouds are fractal, small ones up close look the same as big ones far away. So I don't think this would look as spectacular as imagined. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.39.209}}		Clouds are fractal, small ones up close look the same as big ones far away. So I don't think this would look as spectacular as imagined. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.39.209}}
		+
		+	The thing is that our brains only associate the binocular/3D effect with items that are relatively close, and tend to judge sizes accordingly. If something appears 3D to us, we judge it to be a certain distance away (a key function of binocular vision) and from that we also get a rough estimate of its size. That's why if you see something like a star destroyer in 3D in the movie theater, it looks like something the size of a bus hanging up in the general vicinity of the screen. It doesn't look like something miles long, because big things look flat when they look that size. I believe this way of looking at clouds would give a similar effect. The clouds might look 3D, but they'd also just seem closer and smaller, rather than giving you a real sense of their size.