Do you see a normal stereo ?

A forum to ask questions, post setups, and generally discuss anything having to do with photomacrography and photomicroscopy.

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

LordV
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:28 am
Location: UK

Do you see a normal stereo ?

Post by LordV »

Doing a focus stack of this little springtail sitting on a fence rail. Managed one sequence but when I started doing a second sequence for a stereo pair, I managed one shot and then it moved.
Just for fun I tried a cross-eye stereo of the stack on one side and the single shot on the other and it appeared to me at least as a perfectly normal stereo with the detail showing well. I thought this was a good example of the role the brain plays in interpreting what the eye "sees".
However someone else reported they do not see a normal stereo.

So the question is do you see this as a normal cross-eye stereo ?

Brian v.

Image
www.flickr.com/photos/lordv
canon20D,350D,40D,5Dmk2, sigma 105mm EX, Tamron 90mm, canon MPE-65

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 3603
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Do you see a normal stereo ?

Post by Chris S. »

LordV wrote:So the question is do you see this as a normal cross-eye stereo ?
I do.

--Chris S.

Saul
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:59 am
Location: Naperville, IL USA
Contact:

Post by Saul »

Yes
Saul
μ-stuff

JL
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:15 am
Location: Houston, Tx

Post by JL »

Yes, I do see it as a stereo photo. Guess my brain is easily fooled :shock:

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8586
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

I see it as stereo, but notice it's "not right" where the image is changed or blurred in one of the images.
Perhaps it depends which is your dominant eye.
Left, in my case.
Chris R

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21264
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

I see it as 3-D, but with more "flicker" than usual because of the big discrepancies between images.

--Rik

LordV
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:28 am
Location: UK

Post by LordV »

Thanks all for the info.
I was surprised that the areas eg antennae that were clearly different in detail level still seemed to give a reasonably correct spacial image that seemed to carry the detail. It may be something to do with eye dominance I suppose as long as the dominant eye is seeing the detailed image.
I can understand that the brain might be able to sort this out because often we may see a view where the image in one eye is partially obscured by something and it would be confusing if the view or part of the view suddenly went 2D.

Brian V.
www.flickr.com/photos/lordv
canon20D,350D,40D,5Dmk2, sigma 105mm EX, Tamron 90mm, canon MPE-65

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21264
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

I'm particularly interested to see that I get an impression of proper depth even on the antenna that's on the right side of the image. That's the one that is so horribly OOF in one view that it's almost impossible to identify there.

In thinking about this, one thing to consider is that our brains are used to inferring depth from stereo all across the visual field. That includes the peripheral regions where resolution is awful to start with. I think the neural mechanism for stereo is still not completely understood, but whatever it is, it's clearly capable of operating without much data.

--Rik

Grahame
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:36 pm
Location: New Zealand

Post by Grahame »

It works for me but with some "ghost" around our right side legs antennae.
As an experiment could you put them up with the images reversed to see if eye / handedness makes a difference as to how we see things.
Interesting experiment.
I'm right eye and hand dominant.

LordV
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:28 am
Location: UK

Post by LordV »

Another example with springtails where clean focus is missing on one of the pair.

Brian V.

Image
www.flickr.com/photos/lordv
canon20D,350D,40D,5Dmk2, sigma 105mm EX, Tamron 90mm, canon MPE-65

Grahame
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:36 pm
Location: New Zealand

Post by Grahame »

Harder to get the eyes to make a 3d
But getting data from both images unlike the first set where I think it all came from one image.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8586
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

With that one I'm very conscious of which eye is being the master - it shifts as I look around the image. :smt119

So if the sharpest detail is always in one image, I feel that I can see it OK, with the subordinate eye using fuzzy detail to give depth, and barely notice that one isn't sharp.
Switching eyes is like changing the lead leg when riding a horse. First, train your horse to be able to do it.
Chris R

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic