Do you see a normal stereo ?
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Do you see a normal stereo ?
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.
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.
www.flickr.com/photos/lordv
canon20D,350D,40D,5Dmk2, sigma 105mm EX, Tamron 90mm, canon MPE-65
canon20D,350D,40D,5Dmk2, sigma 105mm EX, Tamron 90mm, canon MPE-65
Re: Do you see a normal stereo ?
I do.LordV wrote:So the question is do you see this as a normal cross-eye stereo ?
--Chris S.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
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.
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.
www.flickr.com/photos/lordv
canon20D,350D,40D,5Dmk2, sigma 105mm EX, Tamron 90mm, canon MPE-65
canon20D,350D,40D,5Dmk2, sigma 105mm EX, Tamron 90mm, canon MPE-65
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
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
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
www.flickr.com/photos/lordv
canon20D,350D,40D,5Dmk2, sigma 105mm EX, Tamron 90mm, canon MPE-65
canon20D,350D,40D,5Dmk2, sigma 105mm EX, Tamron 90mm, canon MPE-65
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.
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.
Chris R