91–100 of 116 posts
> ”Come to find out we were only 28 meters away from each other.” As a point of clarity regarding the title of the article, that means they didn’t take the photo at the same moment. What the title really means is that, the light from this instant in time hit each person camera sensor at the same moment.
I cropped the pictures, and rotated Ron's picture by 0.2° (it wasn't perfectly vertical), so as to line them up on the lighthouse's door: https://i.imgur.com/ISIGQrR.png https://i.imgur.com/qLtZprZ.jpeg Open both in 2 tabs on a computer, and quickly alternate between the 2 tabs, the 3D effect is quite visible because of the perspective differential :-)
> ”Come to find out we were only 28 meters away from each other.” As a point of clarity regarding the title of the article, that means they didn’t take the photo at the same moment. What the title really means is that, the light from this instant in time hit each person camera sensor at the same moment.
Being 28 meters apart makes a maximum 93 nanoseconds difference in time between the light reaching each other
The article says "same millisecond", not "same moment". +/- 93 nanoseconds makes no real difference to the resulting image, the photos were likely thousands of nanoseconds apart
edit: not to mention photographs don't capture a precise moment in time but a window of time, in this case one of them captured 1ms of time and the other 0.625ms, and those windows overlapped almost entirely
This is great! When I look at each picture with one eye simultaneously, I see the image in 3d.
I seem to be unable to see in 3D.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could hold of for a few seconds, but my eyes kept rejecting the image. It's like they somehow knew that they were more than the usual spacing apart (if that matters, for stereoscopic images?)
Try moving closer to or farther from the screen. My eyes did this too up close, but could focus once I backed up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i just want to say thanks for pointing this out. New found possible love, stereoscopic photography. Honestly the stereoscopic effect is absolutely beautiful, even more so that each individual photo
You'll love it. There's dozens of us. Reach out if you want to learn a bit more!
I keep seeing both images rather than a single synthezised 3D image.
This is great! When I look at each picture with one eye simultaneously, I see the image in 3d.
How do I do this? I tried but I don't have individual control of my eyes, so I'm not sure what to do.
For parallel viewing, try focusing your eyes on some object in the distance while still focusing your brain, not your eyes, on the image in front of you. It can take some hours of trying if it is your first time.
I find cross-eyed viewing much easier. For cross-eyed viewing, try to focus your eyes on your nose, and then slowly try to focus your brain on the image in front of you, just like when trying look at something in the corner of your eye without side-eying. At the start, this might mean that you see two versions of the image far apart from each other. While focusing your brain on those images, try slowly focusing your eyes a bit more in front of your nose until the images perfectly overlap.
In a way this says something about human brains. Presumably both people took many pictures of many waves that day, but somehow both of them decided that this is the one that is the best from that trip. As humans we share a similar metric for beauty. I find this idea simultaneously obviously and amazing.
I think rather than "a similar metric for beauty" that the art of taking photos for retouching and posting on the internet for strangers is such a generally stale and predictable form. I'm a visual artist and I'm so over the standard "internet photographer" look. Who takes pictures of lighthouses? It's so boring. It's always people in the same demographic doing it, too. Give me some variety. Formulaic art is uninspir…
Claiming that a particular subject is boring is extremely uninspired. For example, landscape photography is "boring", but aren't Ansel Adams's photos creative and high art? Didn't Van Gogh take landscape painting, a very old subject, and elevate it?
I could just as well claim that taking photos of people is boring - It's been done a billion times before. Reducing a work of art to just the subject seems to miss the point of what art is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll love it. There's dozens of us. Reach out if you want to learn a bit more!
I assume the two shots need to be taken from slightly different angles to properly work, right?