www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Can you make stereo pairs by rotating the subject?
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Can you make stereo pairs by rotating the subject?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Macro and Micro Technique and Technical Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Beatsy



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 1597
Location: Malvern, UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:57 am    Post subject: Can you make stereo pairs by rotating the subject? Reply with quote

It seems logical that taking two stacks with the object rotated a few degrees around the y axis in one of them should create the equivalent of a view from each eye - a stereo pair. Might be some wrinkles if lighting doesn't rotate with the subject, but flat diffuse light from all around should be OK. I thoiught...

I was going to just ask the question in the title, but I decided not to be a lazy beggar and had a go - even though I could just be "rediscovering" something that everyone and his uncle have been fully aware of for centuries. That happens a lot to me... Rolling Eyes

I used a manky old butterfly foot that was already on the rig and shot with a 50x Mitty on a 135mm tube lens for 33x onto the sensor. FF Sony A7r2 running in APS-C crop mode (18 megapixels) with around 200 images per stack (nominally 1 micron steps).

First, a straightforward stack. Flat lighting, no retouching, and the stack didn't go all the way through. Enough "sticky-out" details to detect a stereo effect if it works though



I figured it would be worth creating a baseline stereo to compare against (and if I didn't, one of you would ask for it) and created a stereo from the image above using Zerene. I used +4 and -4 offsets. Worked as expected.



Then I rotated the subject 4 degrees and took another stack. Well, I meant to rotate it 4 degrees, but as well as rotating, it lurched left and seemed to tip sideways and forwards a bit too. My rotation stage is very scratchy and coarse - not really designed for such fine control. Anyway, I left it as it was and stacked it again.



So now it was time to see if I had a working stereo pair, but I was sure it was doomed as the "lurch" would have messed it up. Did it work? You be the judge...



One big benefit, despite appearances, is that this method can use fewer images in total (less than half as many in each stack) to generate good stereo results for screen resolution output. Zerene's stereo algorithm starts to get "artifact rich" if the stack is too sparse. Encouraging...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 20622
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:31 am    Post subject: Re: Can you make stereo pairs by rotating the subject? Reply with quote

Beatsy wrote:
I could just be "rediscovering" something

Just so!

The "true stereo" technique that you're experimenting with is the classic method that used to be the only method. I shot many of them in the old days.

It definitely can have the advantage of fewer artifacts, especially at lower magnifications and smaller NA's where stacks are short.

Disadvantages, as you've discovered, are that that you have to shoot two stacks with consistent lighting and framing. You also have to choose portrait/landscape orientation and stereo separation at the time you shoot the stacks, no adjustments afterward.

Quote:
One big benefit, despite appearances, is that this method can use fewer images in total (less than half as many in each stack) to generate good stereo results for screen resolution output.

That's a very interesting comment, and I have to say, I'm not convinced that it's correct.

In my own experience, especially at higher magnifications, the comparison has gone the other way 'round. Both stacks of the true stereo method have had to be shot at the same step size, to avoid focus banding. So, it's been at least double the frame count and more than double the trouble. The reason I say "at least" double the frame count is that with true stereo I've had to shoot deeper stacks to avoid a form of "focus disparity" in which features near the back of the subject would be sharp in one view but blurred in the other. This problem becomes worse with shallower subjects; crystals on microscope slides are an extreme example.

It seems that your experiences have been different from mine, at least to this point, so I will be interested to see how your study progresses.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Beatsy



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 1597
Location: Malvern, UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:43 am    Post subject: Re: Can you make stereo pairs by rotating the subject? Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
One big benefit, despite appearances, is that this method can use fewer images in total (less than half as many in each stack) to generate good stereo results for screen resolution output.

That's a very interesting comment, and I have to say, I'm not convinced that it's correct.


I just knew I'd get in trouble for that Very Happy

Wholly based on my experiences with the (not very many) stereos I've made. I *always* got better stereo results with more (too many) images in the stack. Sometimes not good enough to keep - but always better than with a "gappy" stack. Having said that, I think most of my stereos have been pretty high mag - so I've not experienced the full gamut and accept I'm very likely wrong in principle - but (my) practice to date has definitely been as I said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 20622
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Probably there are some complicated tradeoffs. That seems to be the usual case.

Synthetic stereo is particularly vulnerable to sideways streaking around small specular highlights. I think of them as "sparkly streakies". The severity of those varies a lot depending on subject and illumination. The same problem, though less severe, also occurs in single stacks, so I've gotten in the habit of using quite flat illumination that minimizes the difficulty.

I would be very interested to hear more about your practices. My own history is that I've always loved stereo, but hated shooting them, even after building a setup that made rotating the camera around the subject pretty simple. So when synthetic stereo got good, even for difficult subjects like bristly bugs, I simply gave up shooting true stereos for macro/micro and switched to synthetics. I won't be going back.

Since your experiences are different, it would be nice to have them documented in enough detail for other people to make an informed judgement about when to use each technique.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Smokedaddy



Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1675
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A guy I correspond with, Tom Wagner, creates lots of stereo images and they are outstanding. He has a Facebook page along with instructions. He found an animation of a rotating COVID-19 virus and after making two screen captures, made it into a cross-eyed stereo image.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/tom-wagner/how-i-manually-use-stereophoto-maker/2637957976240242/



-JW:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kds315*



Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 216

PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not outstanding at all, use stereophotomaker to adjust at least the stereo basics as my eyes hurt to see it...what were you smoking btw.?? ;-)
_________________
Klaus

http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV diary
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Smokedaddy



Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1675
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

... it works perfect for me. i rarely do cross-eyed stereo viewing. He does use SM. It takes a while for my eyes to adjust but this one looks outstanding 'to me' as well.



-JW:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ChrisR
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 8518
Location: Near London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
... it works perfect for me.
Me too, I must say.
The DNA model works, but that's a bit hard in the eyes for me.
_________________
Chris R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Smokedaddy



Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1675
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

... not for me. <g> I wonder why? I see a HUGE DOF, probably only takes a second and it doesn't bother me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kds315*



Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 216

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2020 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The DNA model however works very well for me, too!
_________________
Klaus

http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV diary
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 20622
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Both work fine for me.

I have tried to identify some technical defect in the stereo for the coronavirus, for example some vertical disparity caused by axis of rotation not vertical. But everything I check looks fine.

I wonder if Enrico is having trouble because the image is not very sharp?

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Macro and Micro Technique and Technical Discussions All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group