Stereoscopic galaxy NGC3370

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tontoko, Dec 19, 2006.

  1. tontoko

    tontoko Guest

    tontoko, Dec 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tontoko

    Doug Robbins Guest

    Doug Robbins, Dec 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tontoko

    AustinMN Guest

    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
     
    AustinMN, Dec 19, 2006
    #3
  4. On 19 Dec 2006 06:12:41 -0800, AustinMN <> 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
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Dec 19, 2006
    #4
  5. tontoko

    timeOday Guest

    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.
     
    timeOday, Dec 19, 2006
    #5
  6. tontoko

    tontoko Guest

    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/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2049

    Doug Robbins wrote:
    > At galactic distances there isn't sufficent parallax to provide
    > "stereoscopic" perception.
    >
    > Doug
    >
    > "tontoko" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In the following website;
    > >
    > > http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/...6cd74fff57760deb&act=Attach&type=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/stereographer/stereograph.htm
    > >
     
    tontoko, Dec 20, 2006
    #6
  7. tontoko

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    "tontoko" <> 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/index.php?act=Attach&type=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
     
    M-M, Dec 20, 2006
    #7
  8. tontoko

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 19 Dec 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "tontoko" <> 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/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2049

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 20, 2006
    #8
  9. tontoko

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:00:27 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

    > On 19 Dec 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "tontoko" <> 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/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2049


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 20, 2006
    #9
  10. tontoko

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 20 Dec 2006 22:00:15 GMT, "J. Clarke" <>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:00:27 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
    >
    >> On 19 Dec 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "tontoko" <> 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/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2049

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 20, 2006
    #10
  11. tontoko

    Guest

    J. Clarke wrote:

    > 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.
    >

    --
    > --John
    > to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


    Real or not - the results are fantastic. I have not seen anything so
    cool since my Viewmaster.

    Brgds,
    Ron
     
    , Dec 21, 2006
    #11
  12. tontoko

    tontoko Guest

    Thank you (^_^)

    M-M wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > "tontoko" <> 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/index.php?act=Attach&type=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
     
    tontoko, Dec 21, 2006
    #12
  13. tontoko

    tontoko Guest

    In the commercial version of Stereographer, it is available to
    synthesize the stereograph having 700x500 pixels ;-)

    J. Clarke wrote:
    > On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:00:27 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
    >
    > > On 19 Dec 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "tontoko" <> 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/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2049

    >
    > --
    > --John
    > to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    tontoko, Dec 21, 2006
    #13
  14. tontoko

    tontoko Guest

    I concede it is hard to confirm whether that stereograph is "what's
    wanted" unless our left eye is 1000 light-year far away from right eye.

    In the following website, I collected some stereographs for microscopic
    objects, If you are interested, please visit;

    http://geocities.com/q17320508/stereograph/microscopic/microscope.htm

    Bill Funk wrote:
    > On 20 Dec 2006 22:00:15 GMT, "J. Clarke" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:00:27 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 19 Dec 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "tontoko" <> 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/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2049

    > --
    > Bill Funk
    > replace "g" with "a"
     
    tontoko, Dec 21, 2006
    #14
  15. tontoko

    tontoko Guest

    Thank you (^_^) I posted my response to the thread in
    comp.graphics.apps.photoshop.

    wrote:
    > J. Clarke wrote:
    >
    > > 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.
    > >

    > --
    > > --John
    > > to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    > > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

    >
    > Real or not - the results are fantastic. I have not seen anything so
    > cool since my Viewmaster.
    >
    > Brgds,
    > Ron
     
    tontoko, Dec 21, 2006
    #15
  16. tontoko

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 04:23:05 -0800, tontoko wrote:

    > In the commercial version of Stereographer, it is available to
    > synthesize the stereograph having 700x500 pixels ;-)


    Which is 350 kilopixels which is a tenth the resolution of an obsolete
    point-and-shoot and not sufficient for more than postage-stamp sized
    prints if appearance is an issue.

    > J. Clarke wrote:
    >> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:00:27 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
    >>
    >> > On 19 Dec 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "tontoko" <> 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/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2049

    >>
    >> --
    >> --John
    >> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 21, 2006
    #16
  17. tontoko

    Mike Russell Guest

    "tontoko" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I concede it is hard to confirm whether that stereograph is "what's
    > wanted" unless our left eye is 1000 light-year far away from right eye.


    The fireworks are an example where we know the shape - a more or less
    spherical set of parabolic trajectories. Your stereo view, while
    interesting, extracts a completely different shape than this, with the
    colored trajectories appearing closer than the larger white ones.

    > In the following website, I collected some stereographs for microscopic
    > objects, If you are interested, please visit;
    >
    > http://geocities.com/q17320508/stereograph/microscopic/microscope.htm


    I agree with Ron - the images are interesting, and fun to look at, and you
    are to be congratulated for discovering something new, and implementing it.
    But you are perhaps leaving it a little ambiguous whether this is real
    stereo, or an interesting pseudo stereo effect. It is the latter.
    --

    Mike Russell
    www.curvemeister.com/forum/
     
    Mike Russell, Dec 22, 2006
    #17
  18. tontoko

    Guest

    Mike Russell wrote:

    > But you are perhaps leaving it a little ambiguous whether this is real
    > stereo, or an interesting pseudo stereo effect. It is the latter.
    > --
    >
    > Mike Russell
    > www.curvemeister.com/forum/


    Hi Mike,
    Maybe a better term would be perceptually enhanced. I think the
    technique may have applications in memory retention/production in the
    classroom and children would love it. Maybe with an image of a mandala
    it could be used as an aid in meditation; again, especially for
    children in the classroom.
    The images could use a slider for adjusting eye set distance (IPD).


    Brgds,
    Ron
     
    , Dec 22, 2006
    #18
  19. tontoko

    Mike Russell Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    [re stereo enhancement of single images]
    > Hi Mike,
    > Maybe a better term would be perceptually enhanced. I think the
    > technique may have applications in memory retention/production in the
    > classroom and children would love it. Maybe with an image of a mandala
    > it could be used as an aid in meditation; again, especially for
    > children in the classroom.
    > The images could use a slider for adjusting eye set distance (IPD).


    Now you're talking - sort of a 3D version of Photoshop's warp tool, that
    lets you mold the surface like clay, with some added tools to use
    brightness, detail, etc to create default surfaces.

    Now the only question is, who writes the code? :)
    --
    Mike Russell
    www.curvemeister.com/forum/
     
    Mike Russell, Dec 22, 2006
    #19
  20. tontoko

    tontoko Guest

    Please mind that my software can not reproduce the perspective with
    100% authentication.
    Firstly if the focal point resides between the foreground and
    background, the software doesn't work properly because it can not
    distinguish the object out of focus in the foreground from the
    background.
    Secondly if the object has uniform appearance, the software can not
    estimate the relative distance of it from other objects (therefore the
    software does not give proper perspective for stars since every star
    has similar appearance as a bright dot except sun.)

    Mike Russell wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > [re stereo enhancement of single images]
    > > Hi Mike,
    > > Maybe a better term would be perceptually enhanced. I think the
    > > technique may have applications in memory retention/production in the
    > > classroom and children would love it. Maybe with an image of a mandala
    > > it could be used as an aid in meditation; again, especially for
    > > children in the classroom.
    > > The images could use a slider for adjusting eye set distance (IPD).

    >
    > Now you're talking - sort of a 3D version of Photoshop's warp tool, that
    > lets you mold the surface like clay, with some added tools to use
    > brightness, detail, etc to create default surfaces.
    >
    > Now the only question is, who writes the code? :)
    > --
    > Mike Russell
    > www.curvemeister.com/forum/
     
    tontoko, Dec 22, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Galaxy TVisto Multimedia Center @ A True Review

    Silverstrand, Jan 9, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,236
    Silverstrand
    Jan 9, 2006
  2. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,050
    Stan Brown
    Jul 6, 2005
  3. Silverstrand

    Galaxy Geforce 7900 GT @ PureOverclock

    Silverstrand, Jul 8, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    682
    Silverstrand
    Jul 8, 2006
  4. tontoko

    Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy

    tontoko, Dec 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    300
    tontoko
    Dec 18, 2006
  5. tontoko

    Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy (2)

    tontoko, Dec 26, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    296
    tontoko
    Dec 26, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page