Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Stereoscopic galaxy NGC3370

Reply
Thread Tools

Stereoscopic galaxy NGC3370

 
 
tontoko
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2006
In the following website;

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=3566

the image shown is the stereograph of galaxy NGC3370 synthesized by
Stereographer (original image: HST).

For detail of Stereographer, visit;

http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereo...tereograph.htm

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Doug Robbins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2006
At galactic distances there isn't sufficent parallax to provide
"stereoscopic" perception.

Doug

"tontoko" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> In the following website;
>
> http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=3566
>
> the image shown is the stereograph of galaxy NGC3370 synthesized by
> Stereographer (original image: HST).
>
> For detail of Stereographer, visit;
>
> http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereo...tereograph.htm
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
AustinMN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2006
Doug Robbins wrote:
> At galactic distances there isn't sufficent parallax to provide
> "stereoscopic" perception.


At least not if you stay within the solar system.

Austin

 
Reply With Quote
 
Daniel Silevitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2006
On 19 Dec 2006 06:12:41 -0800, AustinMN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Doug Robbins wrote:
>> At galactic distances there isn't sufficent parallax to provide
>> "stereoscopic" perception.

>
> At least not if you stay within the solar system.


Nitpick: If you wait long enough, the orbit of the Sun around the
galactic center will provide a reasonably large baseline. Of course
'long enough' is best measured in megayears...

-dms
 
Reply With Quote
 
timeOday
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2006
Doug Robbins wrote:
> At galactic distances there isn't sufficent parallax to provide
> "stereoscopic" perception.
>


Stereoscopic images often have enhanced depth for effect. I think doing
that with stars is a neat idea. They're so far away it's easy to forget
that some are much, much further away than others.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tontoko
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2006
Surely there isn't parallax enough to cause stereoscopic effect since
every star or galaxy has virtually "infinite" distance from the camera.

My software converts the dimness of the image to the distance from the
camera. Practically the galaxy or nebula is thought to have some
fractal structure and it causes blurry on the image taken by the camera
when the part of it is more distant from other parts.
The following image is an example of synthesized stereograph for a
fractal structure. As seen on it, more detailed, more distant it looks
like.

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=2049

Doug Robbins wrote:
> At galactic distances there isn't sufficent parallax to provide
> "stereoscopic" perception.
>
> Doug
>
> "tontoko" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> > In the following website;
> >
> > http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=3566
> >
> > the image shown is the stereograph of galaxy NGC3370 synthesized by
> > Stereographer (original image: HST).
> >
> > For detail of Stereographer, visit;
> >
> > http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereo...tereograph.htm
> >


 
Reply With Quote
 
M-M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
"tontoko" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Surely there isn't parallax enough to cause stereoscopic effect since
> every star or galaxy has virtually "infinite" distance from the camera.
>
> My software converts the dimness of the image to the distance from the
> camera. Practically the galaxy or nebula is thought to have some
> fractal structure and it causes blurry on the image taken by the camera
> when the part of it is more distant from other parts.
> The following image is an example of synthesized stereograph for a
> fractal structure. As seen on it, more detailed, more distant it looks
> like.
>
> http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=2049


That one is very easy to see, and quite effective. The galaxy is better
if I reduce the size to 50% of original so onscreen the (dual) image is
no more than 5 inches wide. At least that is the way my eyes work.

Nice work!

--
m-m
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2006
On 19 Dec 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "tontoko" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Surely there isn't parallax enough to cause stereoscopic effect since
>every star or galaxy has virtually "infinite" distance from the camera.
>
>My software converts the dimness of the image to the distance from the
>camera.


Are you trying to say that the dimmer a subject is, the farther away
it is? I don't think many astronomers will agree with this.
>Practically the galaxy or nebula is thought to have some
>fractal structure and it causes blurry on the image taken by the camera
>when the part of it is more distant from other parts.


Surely, the DOF at the distance of the subject is great enough to make
the entire subject in acceptable focus. See your above line about the
subject being virtually infinitly far away. So, each part of the
subject will be virtually the same distance from the camera, so even a
virtually non-existant DOF will render the entire subject in
acceptable focus.
>The following image is an example of synthesized stereograph for a
>fractal structure. As seen on it, more detailed, more distant it looks
>like.
>
>http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=2049

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2006
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:00:27 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

> On 19 Dec 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "tontoko" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Surely there isn't parallax enough to cause stereoscopic effect since
>>every star or galaxy has virtually "infinite" distance from the camera.
>>
>>My software converts the dimness of the image to the distance from the
>>camera.

>
> Are you trying to say that the dimmer a subject is, the farther away
> it is? I don't think many astronomers will agree with this.
>>Practically the galaxy or nebula is thought to have some
>>fractal structure and it causes blurry on the image taken by the camera
>>when the part of it is more distant from other parts.

>
> Surely, the DOF at the distance of the subject is great enough to make
> the entire subject in acceptable focus. See your above line about the
> subject being virtually infinitly far away. So, each part of the
> subject will be virtually the same distance from the camera, so even a
> virtually non-existant DOF will render the entire subject in
> acceptable focus.


It looks like he's creating false depth of field along with the false
dimensions. His tool can make pretty pictures but it doesn't come close
to reflecting reality. He doesn't give you what you would get taking a
stereo pair from two widely different positions with the aid of a
faster-than-light starship.

Further the image size his software produces seems to be pretty small--for
50 bucks I'd want something that could generate a pair that I could hang
on a wall and 350 kilopixels doesn't cut it.

>>The following

image is an example of synthesized stereograph for a
>>fractal structure. As seen on it, more detailed, more distant it looks
>>like.
>>
>>http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=2049


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2006
On 20 Dec 2006 22:00:15 GMT, "J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:00:27 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> On 19 Dec 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "tontoko" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Surely there isn't parallax enough to cause stereoscopic effect since
>>>every star or galaxy has virtually "infinite" distance from the camera.
>>>
>>>My software converts the dimness of the image to the distance from the
>>>camera.

>>
>> Are you trying to say that the dimmer a subject is, the farther away
>> it is? I don't think many astronomers will agree with this.
>>>Practically the galaxy or nebula is thought to have some
>>>fractal structure and it causes blurry on the image taken by the camera
>>>when the part of it is more distant from other parts.

>>
>> Surely, the DOF at the distance of the subject is great enough to make
>> the entire subject in acceptable focus. See your above line about the
>> subject being virtually infinitly far away. So, each part of the
>> subject will be virtually the same distance from the camera, so even a
>> virtually non-existant DOF will render the entire subject in
>> acceptable focus.

>
>It looks like he's creating false depth of field along with the false
>dimensions. His tool can make pretty pictures but it doesn't come close
>to reflecting reality. He doesn't give you what you would get taking a
>stereo pair from two widely different positions with the aid of a
>faster-than-light starship.


I think you're right; his description, as I read it, doesn't really
say what's going on.
it could be useful, if that's what's wanted.
>
>Further the image size his software produces seems to be pretty small--for
>50 bucks I'd want something that could generate a pair that I could hang
>on a wall and 350 kilopixels doesn't cut it.
>
>>>The following

>image is an example of synthesized stereograph for a
>>>fractal structure. As seen on it, more detailed, more distant it looks
>>>like.
>>>
>>>http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=2049

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy (2) tontoko Digital Photography 0 12-26-2006 01:59 PM
Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy tontoko Digital Photography 0 12-18-2006 12:17 AM
Galaxy Geforce 7900 GT @ PureOverclock Silverstrand Front Page News 0 07-08-2006 02:41 PM
Galaxy TVisto Multimedia Center @ A True Review Silverstrand Front Page News 0 01-09-2006 04:12 AM
New releases: Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy, Danielle Steel's & More UMD: Updated complete R1 DVD DB & info lists Doug MacLean DVD Video 5 07-06-2005 12:02 AM



Advertisments