Do you see a normal stereo ?

[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.

[Chris S.]

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

I do.

--Chris S.

[Saul]

Yes

[JL]

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

[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.

[rjlittlefield]

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

--Rik

[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.

[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]

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]

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

Brian V.

[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]

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

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.