FL Photo wrote:
Nicely done, but the model seems a little close to the tree and when viewed her leg is in front but her upper half appears behind the tree.  This kinda' throws off the viewing for me,  otherwise a well done image.

Not a critique, just a general observation.

Thanks for the compliment. How are you viewing the image? I'm impressed that you have some idea of how to view an image such as this.

I use a Pokescope, which makes it much easier to view the image in 3D. The model's right arm appears in front of the tree to me.

FL Photo wrote:
I just view the image by focusing on my finger about 6 inches in front of my face,  then remove my finger and let the image blend into one from that focal length.   Works great and requires no viewer!!

Kinda' like looking at it "crosseyed"!

Yeah, the Pokescope is a crutch. I probably will always need it, because I am far-sighted in one eye and near-sighted in the other. It is all-but impossible for me to focus on the same object with both eyes simultaneously.

I'm just wonder if your method might have produced the effect you observed? I believe the lens I used (Loreo Lens-in-cap) is more of a parallel method than a cross-eyed method.

Amazing Images wrote:
I use the parallel method, which is what your image is geared for, and it "popped" into 3D virtually instantly. I don't use any fingers or viewers or anything to view 3D, I've just learned how to let my left eye look at the left image and the right eye at the right image while keeping the focus correct. I find the parallel method virtually strainless, and could probably watch a 3D movie this way, if it had parallel images. The cross-eye method I find an incredible eye-strain. The cross-eye won't work on this image by the way, and that is why she appears to be both in front and behind the tree.

The image was perfectly fine in 3D as I viewed it. She appears correctly in front of the tree, which appears to be leaning away from the camera slightly. Good effort, well done!
I've been thinking about doing nudes in 3D too, but haven't got a Loreo lens yet. Perhaps you could also make better use of the 3D if you got closer to the model so that, percentage-wise, the curves of her breasts towards the camera were more pronounced?

Thanks for the insight.

One of the frustrations of the Loreo is its narrow angle of view. I've wondered about capturing the curves (such as breasts) of the female form using 3D (should be stunning, I, as a male, would think). But, doing that would lose a lot of context clues. Effective 3D images really need to have foreground, mid-ground and background context cues. The human body close up usually doesn't provide enough of that, so the image looks flat.

Richard Tallent wrote:
Dang it.

I can't do the parallel thing. My eyes cross naturally when I relax them, and I can't make them look far enough away to get the merged image.

Here are a few on my MM portfolio, but you have to use the cross-eye technique (18+):

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=8074981
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=7244595
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=7244638

--Richard

The parallel thing is easy once you try and achieve it a couple of times.
I relax my eyes and let them de-focus, as if I was looking at something far away. (Further than the screen I'm really looking at) And then I line the two blurred images up such that I see 3 images side by side. The middle of the three images is then in 3D.

I had to save your pics to my computer so I could use 2 instances of Irfanview to display them side by side, that way I could position the left image to the right of the right image, so I could view them the "parallel" way...
Nice work. I see you used the poses to good advantage to show the 3D depth aspect. I think adding some items to the set, both closer and further away relative to the camera, would enhance this even more. Good work. Were these done with a Loreo 3D lens in a cap thingee?

Imagebuffet wrote:
Thanks for the insight.

One of the frustrations of the Loreo is its narrow angle of view. I've wondered about capturing the curves (such as breasts) of the female form using 3D (should be stunning, I, as a male, would think). But, doing that would lose a lot of context clues. Effective 3D images really need to have foreground, mid-ground and background context cues. The human body close up usually doesn't provide enough of that, so the image looks flat.

I thought the Loreo had a fairly wide angle? It's also very high f-stop number too, isn't it?

EDIT: Perhaps another option is to mount two cameras side by side, both with identical wide lenses. If the lens-to-lens distance is wider than the distance between your eyes, the 3D effect may be more pronounced, showing off the curves to greater effect.
I did come across a site once where someone had step by step instructions for how to mount two cameras side by side and modify them so that one shutter button would trigger both cameras at the same time. Don't have the link anymore, but Mr Google might know.

Amazing Images wrote:
I thought the Loreo had a fairly wide angle? It's also very high f-stop number too, isn't it?

The Loreo has a very narrow angle. I have one, and I used my viewer to look at this image. It looks good!

Amazing Images wrote:

I thought the Loreo had a fairly wide angle?

No, not at all! It splits the regular frame in half. Taking pictures with it is like taking pictures through a keyhole.

Amazing Images wrote:
It's also very high f-stop number too, isn't it?

It has 2 f-stops; 11 and 22. It also has 3 settings for distance, ambiguously denoted by icons of a flower, stylized humans and mountains. I've never found much difference in the distance settings, but maybe I just haven't been careful enough?

SayCheeZ! wrote:
One way of creating a stereo photo that doesn't require a viewer is to make an animated gif using each of the images as one layer, and play it back at a speed of @ .2 seconds.

It only takes a few seconds to do, and can be done with many photo editing programs (Photoshop, Elements... etc).


A quick example using the first set of images in this thread:
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6572 … nimjb6.gif

Thanks for that. I've seen that trick before and it creates an illusion of 3D using an illusion of (camera) movement. Not quite the same as true 3D though, is it. I wonder when LCD glasses linked to the computer and with suitable software to alternate the display of left-right images will be common in electronics stores?

Amazing Images wrote:
EDIT: Perhaps another option is to mount two cameras side by side, both with identical wide lenses. If the lens-to-lens distance is wider than the distance between your eyes, the 3D effect may be more pronounced, showing off the curves to greater effect.
I did come across a site once where someone had step by step instructions for how to mount two cameras side by side and modify them so that one shutter button would trigger both cameras at the same time. Don't have the link anymore, but Mr Google might know.

I actually bought an optical rail for my tripod specifically designed to facilitate this method. It's still a pain to do with a single camera, and I rarely use it. Many enthusiasts would say that it is easy enough just to use the shift-weight method, in which you take one picture while standing on one leg, then shift your weight to the other leg to take the other picture. But, I always mess up that method and my images are ineffective, due to camera shake and object movement and divergent lens angles.

Imagebuffet wrote:

Amazing Images wrote:
I thought the Loreo had a fairly wide angle?

No, not at all! It splits the regular frame in half. Taking pictures with it is like taking pictures through a keyhole.


It has 2 f-stops; 11 and 22. It also has 3 settings for distance, ambiguously denoted by icons of a flower, stylized humans and mountains. I've never found much difference in the distance settings, but maybe I just haven't been careful enough?

I suspect those settings don't adjust the focusing distance (which is probably fixed), but the point at which the two views converge. When you look at the keyboard, your eyes will be looking somewhat toward each other, but when you look at the moon your eyes will be looking parallel to each other. That's probably what that setting achieves.

I've seen photos of the Burning Man event in 3D, which got me all interested in 3D photography. There is a lot more information in a 3D photograph than in a plain 'flat' photograph!

SayCheeZ! wrote:
One way of creating a stereo photo that doesn't require a viewer is to make an animated gif using each of the images as one layer, and play it back at a speed of @ .2 seconds.

It only takes a few seconds to do, and can be done with many photo editing programs (Photoshop, Elements... etc).


A quick example using the first set of images in this thread:
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6572 … nimjb6.gif

Thanks for putting that together for us. I notice that the GIF loses a lot of the color values (of course; it only has a 256-color palette).

Although this method is the only way that some members of my family could ever see 3D (-ish) images, I don't find it compelling for myself.

Imagebuffet wrote:

I actually bought an optical rail for my tripod specifically designed to facilitate this method. It's still a pain to do with a single camera, and I rarely use it. Many enthusiasts would say that it is easy enough just to use the shift-weight method, in which you take one picture while standing on one leg, then shift your weight to the other leg to take the other picture. But, I always mess up that method and my images are ineffective, due to camera shake and object movement and divergent lens angles.

I've successfully used that method, but with the camera on a tripod: Move the legs 2.5 - 3 inches between shots and make sure with both shots that the centre spot in the view finder is pointing at the same object (ie: convergence). The trouble is that it takes too long between shots, so if there is cloud movement, the amount of sunlight between shots might be different.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
The Loreo has a very narrow angle. I have one, and I used my viewer to look at this image. It looks good!

Thank you!

On one hand, it is great to see Jessica standing there, in all her 3-D glory. OTOH, the image quality from the Loreo is not very good; her face is a bit fuzzy. Still, shapely nudes are really nice in 3D. So, even though I enjoy having a few 3D images, and wish I had more, I don't feel too badly about the lack, because I took better-quality shots with my Canon lens.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
The Loreo has a very narrow angle. I have one, and I used my viewer to look at this image. It looks good!

If you use your Loreo lens to shoot a photo of a 3D photo, such as in the OP, would that mean you get a 4D photo or a 6D. (do the D's add or multiply?)

Richard Tallent wrote:
Dang it.

I can't do the parallel thing. My eyes cross naturally when I relax them, and I can't make them look far enough away to get the merged image.

Here are a few on my MM portfolio, but you have to use the cross-eye technique (18+):

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=8074981
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=7244595
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=7244638

--Richard

OMG, my eyes are totally messed up now. I tried looking at one through a viewer. You should really fix that...

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:

OMG, my eyes are totally messed up now. I tried looking at one through a viewer. You should really fix that...

Use the method I described up above a bit (2 instances of a jpg viewer). If you find it hard to do, you'll need to reduce the size of both images until the distance from, say, the woman's nose in the left pic to the woman's nose in the right pic is LESS than the distance between the pupils of your eyes. That way, your eyes will not be forced to diverge, which would be a strain to do. Sitting further back from the screen will also make it less of a strain. But yeah, reducing the size of the images so that is important. Another way of stating it would be that each half of the image should be no wider than the spacing of your eyes (preferably slightly less) and the two halves should be as close together as possible on the screen. Hope that all makes sense.

Good work. Were these done with a Loreo 3D lens in a cap thingee?

Nope. Two 5D bodies, each with a 50mm f/1.8 lens.

Plus dual RF remote controls to receive a shutter signal from one transmitter, and both cameras on MF (AF times aren't close enough between the cameras to synch with studio flash).

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
OMG, my eyes are totally messed up now. I tried looking at one through a viewer. You should really fix that...

lol... these shots are reverse L-R, so the parallel technique will probably screw with your mind.

The cross-eye technique is the only one I can do myself (I've tried parallel numerous times, and don't have a viewer for them).

I might submit one of them to a local juried show... the thought of a crowd of blue-haired ladies gathering around at an art gallery trying to cross their eyes to see the effect makes me giggle.