Anthers and stigma of Erodium cicutarium: stereo

Images taken in a controlled environment or with a posed subject. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21444
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Anthers and stigma of Erodium cicutarium: stereo

Post by rjlittlefield »

Back in '07, I posted Anthers and stigma of Erodium cicutarium.

Today I had occasion to rework that stack using newer software and techniques.

The stereo version came out pretty well, and I thought you might like to see it.

Image

Zerene Stacker synthetic stereo, +-3.5%, DMap with some retouching from PMax and a bit of cleanup in Photoshop using the clone tool. Strongly sharpened -- I find that crisper detail helps the stereo to lock up.

--Rik

Craig Gerard
Posts: 2877
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 1:51 am
Location: Australia

Post by Craig Gerard »

Rik,

Certainly is 'clean' and detailed. I purchased a pair of those particular stereo glasses, previously discussed, so that I can further appreciate such posts.

When comparing the most recent image to the April 2007 image, there appears to be a bubble of some description amongst the pollen on the tip of the anthers. Do you recall 'cloning' that out of the earlier stack? (I believe I can see some traces of 'smudge' in the older image)


Craig
To use a classic quote from 'Antz' - "I almost know exactly what I'm doing!"

shrek
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:37 am
Location: Toulouse (France)

Post by shrek »

Nice ,but I havn't need stéréo glasses to read theses photos ,only squint on !!
but glasses are more confortable !

jp

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

A subject where the stereo helps immensely with perception and understanding.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21444
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Craig Gerard wrote:When comparing the most recent image to the April 2007 image, there appears to be a bubble of some description amongst the pollen on the tip of the anthers. Do you recall 'cloning' that out of the earlier stack? (I believe I can see some traces of 'smudge' in the older image)
Good eyes! I'm lucky to remember what I did last week, let alone 5 years ago. Surely I must have cloned that out for posting. It's definitely there in the source images.
A subject where the stereo helps immensely with perception and understanding.
I agree. Without the stereo, I simply cannot get my brain to put one of the bracts and one of the stigmas in their proper places.
but glasses are more confortable
Agreed!

The viewers I use now are the new "3D Scope" units that I get from Berezin Stereo Photography Products. For my purposes they are far better than the older Wheatstone mini viewers. The difference is that in the new viewers, the mirrors are aligned more precisely and the field of view does a better job of blocking the two extraneous (and monoscopic) side images. Last week I took the new viewers and some prints to an entomology conference and showed them to probably 20 or 30 people. I was delighted to find that only one person could not lock up the stereo views, and there was a good reason in that case because the person was almost blind in one eye. There's another conference coming up in a few days, this one for a bunch of nature photographers. I'll be interested to see how it works for them.

Thanks for visiting and commenting.

--Rik

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8605
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

On seeing stereos, I don't think it has been mentioned though it's pretty obvious, that things change if you wear varifocal glasses.

I've just got my first ever pair of glasses, which are about 0 dioptres (spherical) at the top and +3 at the bottom.
That means they're highly unsuitable for looking at a large computer screen about 900mm away, which is where mine is.
The sharp bit is well down the glasses, AND the placement of the strength is such that the eyes are expected to be converging, the appropriate amount.
So, neck craning ensues, for normal computer work, especially looking at the top of the screen.
It's even worse for viewing 3D, because the appropriate areas on the glasses aren't yet close enough together for a cross-eye view.

I've ordered some fixed-strength glasses, and scolded the optician for not advising that I would obviously need them for 3D viewing. Funnily enough he's not sure that he feels guilty.

(It has also come to light that my eyes will diverge, which means that I can get the images the wrong way round and still "see" 3D. This is as useful being able to flip into mirror writing. It would be preferable to have the ability to think in one direction...)

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

Chris, I wear Varifocals, some of the best (Zeiss, I think). Last time I had a word with my optician and got the middle range altered (closer) to suit working with a monitor and the closest (bottoms of the lenses) to work closer than normal reading distance*. The distance (top) sections work well on stereo pairs from at most three feet back, and the others from closer. It is easy to confuse distance vision spectacles with actual distance in all applications. For example, my VF-2 on my E-P2 normally works with my distance lens sector, although it can be altered (diopters). (Viewing stereo pairs of transparencies also requires distance vision, not reading glasses).

* I also have a pair of those cheap, mail order flip-up magnifying spectacles to go over my varifocals and give me even closer working distance.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8605
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

The problem with computer screens is evidently the angle at which we view them. We don't normally look horizontally to something less than a metre away. I must say for everything else they're about right.
I had quite a long discussion with the man initially, and since. I think they're about the optimum. .
As usual it was a "two for one" deal, so I had the second pair going from about +2 to +5 dioptres, ideal for tabletop, tweezers and transistors.

Your "cheap magnifiers" are OK, in that our eyes' astigmatism does not, I'm told, change much at all as we focus close, so a closer prescription only adds "spherical" strength.

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

ChrisR wrote:Your "cheap magnifiers" are OK, in that our eyes' astigmatism does not, I'm told, change much at all as we focus close, so a closer prescription only adds "spherical" strength.
I have not actually used the flip-ups (I had in mind e.g. when removing tiny screws), just checked what they will do. No doubt they will produce a bit of flare in challenging lighting. :lol:

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

snic320
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 8:54 am

Post by snic320 »

wow !!!
Excellent results, sharp crisp details and a lovely lighting...Perfect!

DQE
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:33 pm
Location: near Portland, Maine, USA

Post by DQE »

Perhaps it's just me or how my eye-brain system is doing 3D tonight, but this is one of the easiest to fuse stereo pairs I can recall, with no 3D artifacts that I could find. It also helped visualize and understand the plant's structures and geometry, as others have noted.

---------------
Re glasses for 3D and other close-viewing work - I have taken the path to use traditional "binary" bifocals, with the lower pair taking up quite a bit more of the height of the lenses than is traditional. This way, I can easily see a whole page in a book without moving my head up and down or squinting. Yet I can also see all of a normally positioned TV screen, again without moving my head up or down. Obviously, this depends on how and where one positions one's book or iPad, but it does work for me. FYI, the height of the lower portion of my bifocals is unusually large at 20mm, with 16mm used for the upper half.

I learned to ask for my bifocals to be made this way some years ago so I could view 14x17 inch radiographs without having to move my head around, a near-requirement for my work at that time. I then discovered that such an unusual split works well for reading while watching TV.

The only problem I've found with such a bifocal design is that the horizontal line between reading and distance viewing that goes across the lens tends to pass near or through one's iris while one engages in ordinary conversation while standing up. Thus, the other person may feel distracted by looking at your eyes through the line. Also, one may by default look at the other person through the line, which is annoying. Yet one can simply adjust one's head angle to prevent both these problems. Most of my day is spent reading or viewing a PC monitor, so I don't mind other limitations too much.

Finally, I believe that traditional split bifocals are sharper at their intended viewing distance than many or most varifocal lenses, but YMMV, of course. So far, I haven't been tempted to try varifocal lenses since I am happy with my current visual functionality.

Disclosure: I am quite nearsighted, and this may be part of why I can work efficiently with traditional but unusually structured bifocals. If I need to see very closeup objects, I just look over the top of my glasses or take them off and I instantly turn into a human macro viewer! When I was much younger, I could focus even more closely without visual aids.
-Phil

"Diffraction never sleeps"

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

DQE wrote: If I need to see very closeup objects, I just look over the top of my glasses or take them off and I instantly turn into a human macro viewer!
I also can see considerably closer without my varifocals. My +2.50 flip-ups give me very nearly the same effect without having to put my spectacles aside or hold them, up against a tendecy to slip back down, when my hands are fully occupied on the task.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

fardels
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:26 pm

Post by fardels »

good job
regards

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic