3D Pics

[RobNZ]

I have been shooting 3D for just over a year now, I postponed 3D to concentrate on the fundamentals of photography, technique, compostion etc.

Technology has moved so fast (much faster than I expected (3D TV's as hardware will become a standard in the future, just like stereo sound has become), its time to pick up my old 3D shooting skills and combine them with what I know now.

I do have some reservations about posting 3D images on a photography forum, but as far as I am concerned (and hopefully you?), they are photographs, I am posting them for C&C and the original 2D compostion should be able to standalone (in some cases it will be the 3D effect only), so C&C can be for 2D or 3D.

I would also like to know, who was able to view the images in 3D, and how long did it take you to be able to.

So I went through some old images, gave them a tweak and crop (bear in mind I knew nothing about compostion) and I have a few oldies to share along with a couple I did today.

I am willing to "mentor" anyone who would like to learn more about shooting in 3D.

The method I use to free view and edit my 3D shots is ther crossview method.

Stare at the paired images (hopefully on a clutter free screen, makes it much easier) and try to focus an imaginary object about one foot in front of your nose. When you see a third picture in the middle of the 2 on screen, relax your eyes slowly and focus on the middle one and hold.

This technique, once learnt is like riding a bike! Easy peasy, from now on.

1. Oldest first, I used 2 cameras to get this, manually synched with some fabricated RC servos. Doesnt look all that good in 2D sadly, 3D it works quite well.

2. 2nd oldest, gutted now I missed the bottom of the frame, you will find yourself trying to peer in to see more, cropped since previous version, too much blue sky. Reshoot is in order.

3. Major flaw in this image, no perspective distorion is gonna correct it, 3D photography is very unforgiving post, global adjustments to both images are ok, but dare not fix anything else, because it will show up big time.

4. All of these were before I knew pretty much anything about photography formally, they were shot for the purpose of 3D, wrong way to think in general.

5. Obviously you cant tell from this size image and the fact its in negative, but this was a 6 shot HDR (3 each side), incredible shadow detail in the flower bed, played with it in negative and preferred it for the 3D version, nothing great, just like the effect.

6. Shot yesterday, stereo baseline was about 1.5 feet, tree is about 300 feet away, I can see depth all the way, thius shot has some flaws due to the wind blowing things around between shots.

7. This was a practice shot that kinda worked, shot this afteroon while I was experimenting.

Yay or nay?

 

[Foxwolfe]

Hah these are awesome, numbers 1 3 4 and 5 being the best in my opinion (and 4 being my favorite).

I do like how 5 turned out but prolly more-so for the way the subject matter is handled in 3D as opposed to the effect (then again I dunno how the original looks).

While #4 doesn't have the best subjects (3 being my fav in that regard) it works the best for 3D to me. While 3 has more interesting subject matter 4 puts it all together in a way that pleases my eye the best.

While 2 6 and 7 look nice, they just don't do much for me.

Sorry I can't really give you any c&c on the comp and aspects like that, since to me they all work really well with the intent of them being three dimensional so theres not much I would really change since it might lose some of the feeling they already have.

Then again it might also be that I haven't seen a lot of 3D photography that is using the effect in a serious manner such as here, so I don't really know what kinda crazy stuff is achieveable (if that makes any sense).

 

[aprhockey]

I really like 2, 4, and 6. I found 3 a little difficult to focus on because it was hard for me to tell when there was a third image to focus on, if that makes sense. Maybe if you put a line between the two pictures, like you did in 6. Also, I think it's really cool how you made your watermark look like it's between the rocks in #1.
The only thing I can say in terms of C&C being a beginner and in awe of these pictures is that maybe 4 would've benefited from placing the camera lower.

Now, a question. How do you know how far apart the camera(s) should be from one picture to the other? I've seen you say that for some pictures you have the camera as much as 60 feet apart, but for 6 you say that they are only 1.5 feet apart.

 

[RobNZ]

Now, a question. How do you know how far apart the camera(s) should be from one picture to the other? I've seen you say that for some pictures you have the camera as much as 60 feet apart, but for 6 you say that they are only 1.5 feet apart.

Thanks for the feedback aprhockey, I work the distance out by feel, but there is a general guide rule, camera stereo baseline should be around 1/30th of the distance of the nearest object in the frame, so if the closest object is 30 feet, the camera can safely be moved 1 foot.

The blossom one I shifted the camera maybe 50mm, because I was close.
No2. was 8 feet to really make the buildings pop, side effect there is I had to lose anything in the frame closer than 80 feet.

Now the 60 feet apart comment was a landscape I did, my subect was 10 miles away, and I could see shape defintion quite well, but my closest forground was well less than 1800ft (1/30 rule 60/1800) which screwed with your eyes big time, lol.

 

[RobNZ]

Thanks for your feedback foxwolfe, all sorts of crazy stuff is acheivable, just have to do it without causing nausea, lol.

Also, I think it's really cool how you made your watermark look like it's between the rocks in #1.

Haha yeah, all the watermarks are embedded with depth somewhere in the frame.

 

[Blake.Oney]

You can go on with the side by side photo's to make images like this can't you?

I'm not sure on that, but I believe I saw images like yours in a tutorial for it. I never figured it out, though.

 

[RobNZ]

Yep you sure can Blake, will give you an idea of depth but I dont find that version appealing.

 

[aprhockey]

Thanks for the info. Seeing those on a 3D tv must be sweet.

 

[Foxwolfe]

As for your question on how long it takes me to view photos such as these, about as long as it takes me to shift my eyes focus from an object at least 10 feet away to my finger if it was a few inches in front of my face.

Thanks again for sharing these, its not often that I get to see 3D photography with this much feeling in it.

 

[sleist]

4. All of these were before I knew pretty much anything about photography formally, they were shot for the purpose of 3D, wrong way to think in general.

I was thinking this exact thing. To what degree can you avoid choosing subject matter on the basis of 3D if that's what your goal is? Is it just a different way of photographing your subject or does the goal of creating a 3D image cause you to avoid subject matter that would only be appealing in 2D?

You can probably tell I'm a bit ambivalent to the technique. In truth, I think the whole 3D TV phase is a gimmick to sell gadgets, but I tend to be a cynic about these things anyway. That being said, I was able to see your 3D images and they were very cool - #5 was my favorite. I give you a lot of credit for being able to figure this out and pull it off.

It reminds me of when I was a kid using my View-Master to see these types of images.

 

[Taylor510ce]

This gives me a headache.

This is actually the same technique that the soon to be release Nintendo DS 3-D achieves its 3-D effect. two seperate images, no need for glasses.

The problem though, is that it creates depth inward. Not outward. The thrill of 3D is because it makes you feel like you are immersed in the environment, things fly at you, or reach towards you in addition to depth. This cannot really be achieved with this type of technique. Everything seems to be contained WITHIN the images.

Now if you will excuse me, I need to go get my eyes checked.

 

[RobNZ]

Thanks for the feedback sleist, at present with only one camera, I do have to choose my subject carefully based on movement, any movement and its out of the question.

Now as for the gimmick suggestion, I agree to a degree, the pricing on the 3D tv's is a gimmick (new technology) but they really only differ in the ability to do 3D compared to a standard display, at present they are twice the price (here in NZ) of a non 3D variant, so consumers are paying a whole lot more for a first gen display that virtually has no media.

I disagree based on the fact that 3D photogrpahy has existed since the begininngs of photography, we also see in 3D.

My vision is to create a beautifully immersive landscape shot that captures you in 2D, can you imagine what the same scene would loook like in 3D, totally immersive and you're able to look into the scene, see the contours, shape, textures, distance, scale.

The 3D effect can vary from mild to hyperstereo which accentutes form and shape.

At the end of the day its all about playing with that 3rd dimension and getting it to fit the image.

 

[RobNZ]

This gives me a headache.

This is actually the same technique that the soon to be release Nintendo DS 3-D achieves its 3-D effect. two seperate images, no need for glasses.

The problem though, is that it creates depth inward. Not outward. The thrill of 3D is because it makes you feel like you are immersed in the environment, things fly at you, or reach towards you in addition to depth. This cannot really be achieved with this type of technique. Everything seems to be contained WITHIN the images.

Now if you will excuse me, I need to go get my eyes checked.

If your getting a headache your doing it wrong, lol.

There are 2 techniques for viewing 3d images in this format. I am using the crossview format, your left eye see's the right image and vice versa. If you accidently viewed them in paralell (left on left, right on right, like the old magic eye books) it will appear really weird and screw with your mind and could quite possibly give you a headache.

As for things appearing in front of the screen, thats easy to do, I chose not to for these images becasue they naturally sit back in the frame.

You want something to poke your eye out, give me an hour and I will see what I can come up with

 

[RobNZ]

Here is a quick pop out I made on the fly.

 

[Foxwolfe]

Haha nice work on the pop out.

Ya know what I was wondering. I started thinking about the 3DS and how it works (or at least how I thought I read it works), and was thinking if it would be feasible to make a kinda "single image" to view these with. like having the images printed then cutting them up into thin lines and arranging them together in a way that (when at the correct distance) each eye can only see the image intended for it. Like if the individual lines for each image were tilted at an angle making them only viewable to the opposite eye.

Then again now that I think about this as I'm typing it I don't know if that would even work. Unless maybe instead of being tilted at an angle one images lines were recessed from the top image, but then you'd still have the top image in view of both eyes. I guess you could put something in front of both images and it has slits in it that line up each eye with each respective shot. I bet someones already made something like this, I dunno I'm kinda stoned right now

Anyway its pretty cool trying to think up cool shot scenarios that would work well in 3D shots, more fun in ways than 2D photography.