[Tech] Stereoscopic Gifs

[VibroAxe]

Now i've never heard of this, but some bloke over at Moriash Moreau: My Second Life is reporting the idea of creating a stereoscopic (3d) image by rapidly "wiggling" between the two source images.

I was very impressed

More info....

Spoiler

 

[elDiablo]

Not really that new. It's been done a lot before. Good illusion though!

 

[Wol]

I'm confused. Is that gif in the spoiler it?

It's just like a normal moving 3d scene just he's only been bothered to render 2 frames of it and thought "ah. fuck it" and stopped? The above gif just looks juddery and isn't really helping me see the scene in more "3d" than .... a 3d rendered video for example. This is why I usually stick camera wiggle when doing 3d scenes as you get more of an emphasis on what is where, but in the end its still a 2d frame and its your brain looking at the scene and working out what is where rather than between eyes? Or is it meant to be playing a lot faster and I'm just missing the effect as I'm seeing it at 2 fps.

Meh. Think ive missed something on this one!

 

[PsiSoldier]

This one demonstrates it better imo wol

 

[Zooggy]

Hoy,

Is it me or are those not just, you know, pictures?

What am I not seeing?

Cheers,
J.

 

[Traxata]

The fact that as it's 'wiggling' it looks 3dimensional, when it's clearly not

 

[Zooggy]

Hoy,

That's the thing, I don't see any wiggling at all...

Cheers,
J.

 

[PsiSoldier]

Hoy,

That's the thing, I don't see any wiggling at all...

Cheers,
J.

What browser are you using? :/

 

[thatbloke]

they are animated gifs... do you have them turned off?

 

[waterproofbob]

The fact that as it's 'wiggling' it looks 3dimensional, when it's clearly not

But it really doesn't.

I'm with Wol on this one, unless I'm really missing somet this just seems crap.

 

[Nanor]

I think if we saw the two original pictures it might look a bit more impressive.

 

[Zooggy]

Ahey,

What browser are you using? :/

Ah, ok.

I use good old IE. (Don't go there, Joel Spolsky already said everything I'd want to say, better than I could say it.)

Anyway, tried it on FireFox. Yeah, the first one is kind of crap, but the second one showcases the concept very nicely...

Cheers,
J.

 

[Wol]

With the second picture it just looks like the background is wobbling and the foreground is more stationary. It actually took me a minute to work out it was a diver! Thought it was some wierd sea creature to start with!

The trouble is, its making a change in position (stereogram = diff position of camera), with a change in time, which as far as I'm concerned, is just what moving a camera in a film is. Give me VR goggles anyday!

 

[Pingue]

With the second picture it just looks like the background is wobbling and the foreground is more stationary. It actually took me a minute to work out it was a diver! Thought it was some wierd sea creature to start with!

The trouble is, its making a change in position (stereogram = diff position of camera), with a change in time, which as far as I'm concerned, is just what moving a camera in a film is. Give me VR goggles anyday!

As I just said to Wol, albeit very badly phrased (don't blame me, blame beer):

ok, so its novel, and kind of interesting in its simplicity, but its the same sort of eye-trickery people have been using for centuries - even the old peep-show pleasure beach things managed it better!

Ahem...