Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How To See In 3D On Your iPhone

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the old-tech-made-new dept.

Graphics 94

waderoush writes "Some of the coolest media technologies predate the Web and the PC — in fact, they predate the 20th century. My column in Xconomy explores the world of 19th-century stereoscopes and stereo views, which are the all-but-forgotten forerunners to anaglyphic 3D, VR goggles, and other modern stereo vision systems. As it turns out, it's pretty easy to 'free-view' vintage stereo images on an iPhone or other small screen, getting the full 3-D effect without any other viewing aids. The article has instructions for accessing a collection of old stereo images using the new Seadragon Mobile iPhone app from Microsoft Live Labs." The stereoscope, that killer technology of the last century but one, was invented in 1859 by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., who gave it away and never made a dime off it. If you don't have an iPhone and want to get the feel of free viewing on a computer monitor, start here at Roush's Flickr photostream.

cancel ×

94 comments

how to orgasm in your bathroom (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26188621)

A couple weeks ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Barack Obama -- the messiah himself -- came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was busy and in any case I was sure the secret service wouldn't even let me shake his hand.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as his cock -- or at least as I imagined it!

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a liberal democrat and had been on the Obama train since last year. Of course I'd had fantasies of meeting him, sucking his cock and balls, not to mention sucking his asshole clean, but I never imagined I would have the chance. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of Barack Obama, the chosen one.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big half nigger cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was that Barack Obama wasn't there to see my loyalty and wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. It's even better than listening to an Obama speech!

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of Barack Obama dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful democrat.

Re:how to orgasm in your bathroom (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26189009)

Troll fail Obama's asshole is not pink, please read your copypasta and adjust accordingly.

1st post! (1, Funny)

sineer (991801) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188629)

Show me some titties!

2nd post! (3, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188711)

Show me some 3D titties!

Re:2nd post! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26188847)

Here you go! [eroticaphotographica.com]

Re:2nd post! (1)

netsharc (195805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26190665)

Focusing on them for a few minutes at a time [just... a... few... more... seconds...!!!] really can't be good for your eyes...

which image with which eye (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26196029)

The pics on the linked site are ordered such that the image on the left needs to be viewed with the left eye, etc. I can aim my eyes at the pic this way but I find it very difficult to focus.

Swapping the order of the images so that one can cross the eyes and look at the left image with the right eye and the right image with the left eye seems to be much easier.

Re:1st post! (1)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188801)

From the article:

Every summer, the companies hired hundreds of college students to fan out across the countryside, hawking the latest series of travel, documentary, educational, comic, burlesque, or "sentimental" views.

Apparently things haven't changed much in the last 100 years.

Re:1st post! (1)

ChangelingJane (1042436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189581)

It would take a lot longer than a hundred years for humans to somehow devolve away from being interested in sex. And my guess is that survival rates would plummet.

Re:1st post! (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#26191551)

And my guess is that survival rates would plummet.

You say that like it's a bad thing... :P

What I'd love is some alcohol additive that neutralizes the hormonal response, so that the peg-legged hunchback at the end of the bar is just as ugly at 3 am as she was at 8 pm. That right there would probably solve a fair chunk of the overpopulation problem... at least in the southern parts!

Re:1st post! (1)

ChangelingJane (1042436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193883)

so that the peg-legged hunchback at the end of the bar is just as ugly at 3 am as she was at 8 pm

I'd love an alcohol additive that neutralizes sexist pigs so they never even make it to the bar in the first place. Especially the ones that think they're any hotter than the 'peg-legged hunchback'.

Re:1st post! (1)

ryszard99 (1193131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26208871)

I'd love an alcohol additive that neutralizes sexist pigs so they never even make it to the bar in the first place. Especially the ones that think they're any hotter than the 'peg-legged hunchback'.

I'd love an alcohol additive that would lighten people up and realise there are jokes in the world and that sometimes un PC stuff can be funny.

Re:1st post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26209621)

I'd have an easier time laughing if it wasn't so rampant in day-to-day life. And wasn't even more ridiculously over-the-top on /. It might seem funny to you, but to someone that has to deal with the reality of that brand of stupid on a regular basis, it creates a hostile environment very quickly. Why do you think women are so rare on this site? Here's a hint: It's not because "math is hard!"

Re:1st post! (1)

ChangelingJane (1042436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26209623)

That was me :P

Re:1st post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26212169)

Women are rare here because geeks don't like psychotic mindfuck bitches who throw tantrums at every male within shrieking distance. Why is it my problem that you can't get laid ? Fuck you!

Re:1st post! (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#26212105)

I'd love a slashdot additive that neutralizes trolls so they stop making unfounded accusations of sexism, racism or *-ism when those attacks are a projection of their own insecurities.

Re:1st post! (1)

ChangelingJane (1042436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26215171)

I think what you fail to realize is that, a lot of times for women, it isn't a projection of their insecurities. There is a lot of sexism going on in sites like this (and in geek circles in general) that is very real. And it has a very real effect on those being attacked.

It might result in instances like this, where perhaps I overreacted a bit. If someone I knew well had made the same joke amongst friends, I probably would've had a very different reaction. But in an online forum of strangers? It's a lot easier to misjudge tone and intention, and to be on the lookout for trolls. When most of the time it's guys purposefully being rude and disrespectful, it's very easy to see it where it isn't happening. It's a personal, emotional kind of attack, and it's only natural that women get a bit defensive about it when they're outnumbered.

When women get angry over this kind of thing, it has its reasons, even if sometimes it might be a bit reactionary. It doesn't just spontaneously generate out of nowhere. At times like that, I think it'd be a lot more helpful to take a step back and say, "Ok, she didn't read it how I intended, and this is a place dominated by men and boys, many of whom get hostile towards women. Maybe I should take a step back for a moment and think about where she's coming from."

At any rate, my intent wasn't to troll or piss you off, and I guess I'll just leave it at that.

Not to worry (2, Funny)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188643)

I have a view-master [wikipedia.org] that I use to look at all the old photos of dinosaurs and other documentary images such as popeye and three little pigs.

Re:Not to worry (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26191047)

Something lost in todays youth, the first time you got to peer into the tiny little box and see the most amazing things.

Too bad some of us had bad eyesight and didn't realize what was there until later in life ( ever seen a 20 year old buying up view-master disks like candy ) . I still remember as a kid after getting one ' this is stupid '.

The roadrunner stuff was the best. :)

Re:Not to worry (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 5 years ago | (#26201765)

I remember Viewmasters. One of my relatives actually had the camera for taking your own viewmaster pictures, and she would put together her own reels from that. It was pretty schway back in the day!

GNAAAR!!!! (5, Informative)

tempest69 (572798) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188699)

Ok... This one does make me a bit peeved...
The poster shows a bunch of stereo cards, that can obstensibly be shown in 3d on the Iphone.. a pretty cool idea
He adds a tutorial, also a nice touch..
But the Tutorial is for cross eyed viewing, probably the easiest way to view pair images..

However he has the images as straight view images, not crosseyed.. so the 3d effect is inverted.. which is ugly. he could swap the sides, and it will work.. and on an Iphone the images are still small enough to pull a wall-eyed stereo view.. but it takes more skill to master, and image center to center has to be less than the distance between your eyes... otherwise you have to super-paralax.. or get your eyes to spread... it isnt something easy, I've tried.

Anyway the instructions are bad for the images he's showing..

Storm

Re:GNAAAR!!!! (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188771)

I can play Quake1 in 3D parallel view. Pretty cool.

Re:GNAAAR!!!! (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188853)

yea, i was wondering about that. the CG image on the tutorial looks amazing (far more impressive than any of the photos, frankly). but almost all of the images in his gallery looked inverted and lacked depth. i did copy one of the images into MS Paint and flip it horizontally, but it still lacked depth.

Re:GNAAAR!!!! (1)

tempest69 (572798) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189031)

ok.. flipping the whole thing horizontally will do nothing... other than flip the while thing horizontally. the left image must be moved to the right hand side (in it's current orientation).. this will help.. good luck

Re:GNAAAR!!!! (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26190855)

doh!
yea, i just tried what you said on one of the WWI images and now it looks much better.

Re:GNAAAR!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26188995)

I was going to ask if it's possible to take any old stereo image and view it cross-eyed or lazy-eyed...as the author seems to imply.

but you answered my suspicions correctly.

cross your eyes on most of these images DOES GIVE YOU A COMBINED CENTER IMAGE.

and it's wrong. the 3d effect is not apparent.

i found a few via google, that were MADE for crosseyed viewing, and the 3d effect when creating a center third image, is IMMEDIATE.

thanks for mentioning this

Make your own! (2, Informative)

neapolitan (1100101) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189077)

Yeah... this is stuff every nerd kid did... a lot. Maybe that's why we all wear glasses. Remember when the 3d random dot patterns were all the rage? Those were a bit more tricky to "see."

A neat think you can do with a digital camera is make your own steroscopic pictures. I did it myself just a couple months ago -- a good technique is to put your digicam with its back against a ruler, and fix the ruler in place. Take one picture of the scene, and with the ruler still fixed, move your camera several inches to the right. Then take the next picture.

Put the two images next to each other on your computer monitor, cross eyes, and instant 3D representation of the scene. Just like your own eyes! You can experiment with changing the depth of focus, etc. I found that it works best with a very large depth of focus -- otherwise you would get weird effects due to the fact you in effect had a "infinity focus" by not changing your camera angle during the translation to create the 3d effect.

Re:GNAAAR!!!! (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189591)

so the 3d effect is inverted

What do you mean?

I had no problems at all getting the 3d effect off the images and it did not seem to be "inverted" to me. As long as you view the slides in nothing bigger than "medium" on the site you should have no problems getting the effect to work for you.

For the people that are having problems... well this is the same sort of skills that it takes to master those Magic Eye posters you used to see all over the place in the 90's. It drove some people insane trying to do it while others just walked up and said, "Hey a dolphin. How cute".

Re:GNAAAR!!!! (1)

Diag (711760) | more than 5 years ago | (#26190107)

Magic Eye posters...

Wow, it's a schooner!

Re:GNAAAR!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26190545)

You're missing the point. There are two techniques for getting the images to meet and form the virtual 3d image. One where you cross your eyes, and one where you defocus/diverge your eyes. In the first one, the right eye sees the left image and vice versa, while in the second, the left eye sees the left and the right eye sees the right image. Depending on which image was taken from which location, the 3d effect IS inverted if you use the wrong technique.

Re:GNAAAR!!!! (1)

topside420 (530370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199105)

Wow - thanks for pointing this out. After a few minutes I can do both techniques. Basically, one is looking beyond the image and the other is looking in front of the image. Looking beyond however seems MUCH easier as your eyes don't cross nearly as much, though.

Re:GNAAAR!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26190789)

straight view is way way way easier than cross-eyed viewing.. I've never understood you people who can cross your eyes and still focus on something

Re:GNAAAR!!!! (2, Funny)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 5 years ago | (#26191547)

actually, being able to cross your eyes and still focus can be really annoying, mostly because, at least for me, it can be tough to get them to UNCROSS after a few minutes of viewing pictures like these, and then i tend to go around with one eye shut until my brain-eye connection resets and my eyes start to behave in a rational way again.

Begger. (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188705)

"The stereoscope, that killer technology of the last century but one, was invented in 1859 by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., who gave it away and never made a dime off it."

And it would have expired by 1923 so what would your point be? What if he did make money off it? It would be irrelevant to us.

Re:Begger. (3)

node 3 (115640) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189019)

It's called "background information". The fact that it was invented in 1859, or that it was Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. who invented it, are equally irrelevant to us.

However, all of the above facts are interesting, including the fact that he gave it away. Good for him.

It's pirate-proof. (5, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188733)

... because everyone knows pirates have only one eye, you ignorant clod!

Re:It's pirate-proof. (1)

Trull (95206) | more than 5 years ago | (#26190199)

Ye be fine land lubber....

Aye aye!

You're turning my iPhone into a (1)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188741)

$200 Viewmaster?!

-click-
-click-
Oooh, Mount Rushmore...

Re:You're turning my iPhone into a (2, Insightful)

Hynee (774168) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188833)

Yeah, it's a shit article.

He's basically pointed out that stereographs can be viewed without equipment by "looking through" them, and stereographs are images, and images can be digitised, and digitized images can be displayed on most modern electronics, and the iPhone is one of these. Whoot.

Oh look! (1)

poity (465672) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188795)

They've got nekkid people too.
http://starosta.com/3dshowcase/inude.html [starosta.com]

Too much eye-crossing for me, though.

Re:Oh look! (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188895)

ughh... that photographer really knows how to pick his models.

this [starosta.com] is the only half-way decent looking girl in that gallery.

Re:Oh look! (1)

Kaetemi (928767) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192011)

A lot of pictures on that site seem to have switched up the left and right one, which is why your eyes will get tired when you try to use those :/
The ones on the other sites are just fine, though.

Re:Oh look! (1)

Kaetemi (928767) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192163)

Err.. self-correction.
They're for cross eye viewing (right eye looks at left image, left image at right image), not for straight eye viewing.
I'm used to using my left eye to look at the left image and right for right image (which is easier, imo).
But anyways, if you're having issues, easiest is to check which method you're using to watch them, and switch them up if needed.

Bill Nye the Crosseyed Guy! (1)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188809)

You mean there were crosseyed people back before the 20th century? I have a feeling tomorrow microsoft's team of lawyers will begin to patent a process enabling a user to cross their eyes for a 3d operating system to compete with Apple's. I still like wikipedia's example better they have nice yellow dots you can use to calibrate your eyes to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:XEyeStCdNYCSmall.jpg [wikipedia.org]

I HAVE NO DEPTH PERCEPTION!!! (2, Insightful)

GrmpyOldPgmr (824319) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188867)

you insensitive clod! I have a lazy eye! ...and astigmatism ...and nystagmus ...and a Blackberry, not an iPhone ...and I'm drunk as shit ...and I'll shut up now and pass out Thanks. I'll be here all week. Try the fish.

Re:I HAVE NO DEPTH PERCEPTION!!! (1)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26190651)

I also have no binocular vision, but I still have depth perception. I just have to use other cues - mainly texture, parallax and perspective. Doesn't work so well for things like catching balls.

Re:I HAVE NO DEPTH PERCEPTION!!! (5, Interesting)

bargainsale (1038112) | more than 5 years ago | (#26190737)

You're far from being alone.

Many people (about 10%) lack *stereopsis*, the ability to fuse to slightly different images from the two eyes so that the brain perceives depth.

But stereopsis is really just the icing on the cake of depth perception, and just as you say, people use all kinds of other visual cues to perceive depth, with the brain doing the processing subconsciously to a great extent.

Lack of stereopsis is so little a handicap that most people lacking it are unaware of the fact; orthoptists (the paramedical professionals who measure squints and treat amblyopia) have special tests to pick it up.

My favourite is the Wirt Fly:
http://www.sussexvision.co.uk/wirtfly.htm [sussexvision.co.uk]

I've known perfectly capable eye surgeons who lacked stereopsis.

Re:I HAVE NO DEPTH PERCEPTION!!! (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205685)

Many people (about 10%) lack *stereopsis*, the ability to fuse to slightly different images from the two eyes so that the brain perceives depth.

I heard a neat story on NPR by a lady who undertook therapy to correct a stereopsis-related problem due to a slight birth defect whereby the brain pretty much ignores one of the eyes to avoid a double-image because it didn't focus right at a young age. (Usually therapy is done in childhood, but she was starting it as an adult.) She told about the day stereo perception finally clicked in her brain.

She was waiting outside for somebody and it started snowing. Having nothing else to do, she practiced focusing on the snow flakes with both eyes, similar to her usual therapy exercises. After several minutes she suddenly realized she could perceive how far away each flake was and she went nuts with joy, sticking her hand out to touch them as they came down. (Those around her must of thought she was on drugs.)
         

Re:I HAVE NO DEPTH PERCEPTION!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26203311)

you insensitive clod! I have a lazy eye!

Well, tell your eye to get off its dead ass and get a fucking job!

Or ⦠(0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26188879)

Or you could just play 0verkill (great ASCII art shooting game) with the -3 flag.

Idle (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26188901)

Oooh, 3D on your iPhone!! *stroke* *stroke*

FFS! shouldn't this shit be in the idle section of slashdot?

Re:Idle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26189137)

P'shaw... I much prefer the red nipple on my thinkpad!

What has the iPhone got to do with this? (5, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26188981)

What an extremely crappy article. The title makes you expect a nifty program for the iPhone to watch 3D images, and it turns out you can view these images in a not-too-good way on any screen and even on paper! You need an iPhone because of its high resolution screen?! Apple fanboi I say.

Re:What has the iPhone got to do with this? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26189185)

It's because to Apple fanbois, there is no "Phone". There is only the iPhone. There is also no mp3 player. Only the iPod.

Same as there is no porn. Only the iGod Steve Jobs to jack off to.

A much better viewing experience... (4, Informative)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189063)

If you want a much more comfortable viewing experience for a little bit of money, I recommend the Pokescope viewer [pokescope.com] . It's a marvelous little invention that not only has an ingenious folding design, but uses prisms instead of lenses so there's infinite focus.

I find free-viewing either parallel or cross-eye to be horrible and headache inducing. It's the same technique that's used to view those stereo scramble posters that were unfortunately popular for a while. It took a long time before I got the technique down, and I always hated it.

I spent years messing around with LCD shutter glasses and high end CRTs, but find for casual viewing the Pokescope is great.

Now that LCD panels are creeping back into the 120hz refresh range and with shorter persistence, LCD shutterglasses will once again become easier to use, but they remain expensive as they are not passive.

The best digital stereo display I ever saw was a prototype from Kodak at Siggraph maybe 5 years ago. They set up a pair of screens inside a box with a lensing and mirroring system as such that your eyes were relaxed and focused on infinity when viewing. It was a very expensive, high end device, but if you delt with stereo photography for a living, it would be a nice thing to have. I don't know that they ever made a product out of it.

Some folks in SF also came up with a method for printing polarized 3D images on an inkjet, was called stereojet. You could view the prints or backlit transparencies with passive polarized 3D glasses. I envisioned doing an art gallery show with all stereo prints, but the costs and time involved were too great for me at the time. I don't know if they are still offering stereojet printing services.

Re:A much better viewing experience... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26198369)

The Loreo Pixi 3D viewer costs only a few dollars and gives an image quality similar to the PokeScope. The Pixi stereoscope also folds flat to around 7mm so is a better option for posting.

Stereoscopes using prisms to deflect the light, such as the PokeScope and Pixi, suffer from chromatic aberrations. The larger the designed deflection gets the worse the chromatic aberration gets, and the smaller the deflection the more work your eyes have to do.

Mirror based stereoscopes, using first surface mirrors, do not suffer from chromatic aberration and give better quality images, and there is a wide range available. A good economical hand held mirror stereoscope for viewing parallel images is the ScreenScope. There are also some cheap designs available in Japan. Some designs mirror just one image, such as the DK Eyewitness 3D book. For something different see the Holoblade which mirrors both images vertically for viewing in the over/under format.

With experience you can learn to view images cross eyed or wall-eyed, but having mastered both I still prefer a mirror stereoscope.

Marilyn Monroe in 3D (2)

MrSteveSD (801820) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189087)

After Harold Lloyd (of silent film fame) retired, he took hundreds of stereo pictures of famous actresses, including many of Marylin Monroe. You can even get a book containing some of his work.

There are two problems with stereo images though.

1. There are no digital stereo cameras available. (you can make one of course but that's enough to put most people off)
2. There is no nice way of viewing them digitally. (not everyone can do freeviewing, and even when you can its a bit awkward)

If only some company would make a cheap digital 3D Camera and some kind of digital viewmaster to view the results.

Re:Marilyn Monroe in 3D (4, Informative)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189131)

Someone FINALLY decided to do a proper, twin lens stereo camera. Fuji announced a prototype at Photokina this year:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092209fujifilm3D.asp [dpreview.com]

I find it bizarre that no one did it before, because it is such an easy thing to do, to combine multiple inexpensive CCDs and a processor that manages the capture and recording of both, synced with a timing circuit.

I built my own digital stereo rig out of two old Sony U30s and used it for about a year until one of the cameras died.

It needs to be combined with a service where you send your pics in and get back stereo cards with a cardboard viewer. Those make great gifts and actually work very well. I would buy it in three seconds if it were on the market today. Lets hope this product gets made and sold.

--Mike

Re:Marilyn Monroe in 3D (1)

ethicalBob (1023525) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189151)

There is a company that has cobbled one together that you can buy http://www.courtesy.nl/tac/camera/cameras.htm [courtesy.nl]

But I'm sure in the future the folks at lomo will come up with one, this really their cup o tea...

Re:Marilyn Monroe in 3D (1)

n6kuy (172098) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196283)

This works for taking stereo pictures of non-moving scenes:

1) take a picture.
2) move your camera a couple inches to the right.
3) take another picture.
4) use photo manipulation software to join the two pictures together.
5) resize as appropriate.

Re:Marilyn Monroe in 3D (1)

ponnnnnnnnnnny (1437021) | more than 5 years ago | (#26203553)

After Harold Lloyd (of silent film fame) retired, he took hundreds of stereo pictures of famous actresses, including many of Marylin Monroe. You can even get a book containing some of his work. There are two problems with stereo images though. 1. There are no digital stereo cameras available. (you can make one of course but that's enough to put most people off) 2. There is no nice way of viewing them digitally. (not everyone can do freeviewing, and even when you can its a bit awkward) If only some company would make a cheap digital 3D Camera and some kind of digital viewmaster to view the results.

There are two problems with stereo images though.

Owww (3, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189097)

Trying to get my poor eyes to split-focus on those makes my eyes feel like they haven't felt since my first goatse click.

And Please, God, let there NOT be a 3D goatse in cyberland somewhere.
       

Re:Owww (1)

DentInYourHead (1331735) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192959)

*cough* http://slackdaddy.org/node/619 [slackdaddy.org] I'm not sure if I should say this is NSFW or not...

Re:Owww (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#26219493)

Somebody else please try that link, I'm too chicken.

Note on the invention of stereoscopy... (2, Informative)

ethicalBob (1023525) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189099)

The OP writes "The stereoscope, that killer technology of the last century but one, was invented in 1859 by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr."

This is incorrect.

While Holmes popularized stereoscopy in America by creating libraries of stereoscope slides and his own hand-held viewer, Sir William Brewster invented the lenticular stereoscope (a simple viewer) in 1850, and known stereoscopes date back to the early 1840s. Notably, this is only shortly after Daguerreâ(TM)s first daguerreotype in 1937 (The first fixed image that didn't fade and needed less than a 30 min exposure).

Not trying to troll, just credit where it's due...

cheers!

Re:Note on the invention of stereoscopy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26189693)

Or, if you like, another stereoscope 'inventor' is Sir Charles Wheatstone: Brittanica says it was "First described in 1832 by English physicist Sir Charles Wheatstone". The 'Viewmaster'-type stereoscope was created by Sir David Brewster, an improvement on Wheatstone's design.

Wheatstone didn't invent the Wheatstone Bridge ... he 'popularized' it (and got his name on it); British mathematician Samuel Christie invented it. He did invent the Playfair Cipher.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/565655/stereoscope [britannica.com]

There's not much certainty in those old attributions; Brittanica doesn't always agree with itself. Possibly it was an old gizmo (say, from the 1600s) that, later, clever men seeking fame 'invented' anew. In those times, people didn't seize on such stuff: Brewster had to go to France to find a manufacturer.

"Binocular drawings were made by Giovanni Battista della Porta (1538-1615), whilst about the same period Jacopo Chimenti da Empoli (1554-1640) produced drawings side by side which clearly indicated his understanding of binocular vision. In 1613 the Jesuit Francois d'Aguillion (1567-1617), in his treatise, coined the word "stéréoscopique""

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/stereosc.htm [rleggat.com]

Wiggle-Grams (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189135)

I find stereoscopic "wiggle-grams" more convenient and have almost the same effect:

http://www.well.com/~jimg/stereo/stereo_list.html [well.com]

(Apologies for the nudity.)
       

MS Supports Apple iPhone and not Windows Mobile (0, Troll)

Digicrat (973598) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189189)

I wouldn't expect MS to show any love for Google's Android. I find it amusing though that MS Labs is developing applications for the iPhone and ignoring their own Windows Mobile OS...

Perhaps that's another sign I should flash my WM6 phone to run Linux/Android....

Where's the story? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26189233)

These have been around for years. I've even made my own both with photos and 3D software. And what does this have to do with an iPhone? All you need is a device that can display an image. Also, some of those images might be the wrong way around for cross-eyed viewing, which I think is easier than parallel viewing. Don't get me wrong, I love stereo imaging, but this story is just crap.

Re:Where's the story? (1)

jthill (303417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192369)

I think the difference is he's found a far simpler transformation that's close enough to accurate that your eyes will do the rest. His algorithm fits in a 30-40fps CPU-only rendering pipeline for e.g. Quake II.

Eh? Where's the picture? (1)

my_left_nut (1161359) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189301)

Yeah, right. Wait until you turn 42 and then do this. "Hold it 8 inches from your face", my arse. Just a blurry blob at that distance to my 48 year old peepers.

News? (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189391)

Wow, stereoscopy is news!? Can't wait until I read some news about the printed press. It's about time this thing comes about, my scribes who translated my HTTP packets into hand-written letters are pretty expensive and slow. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some daguerreotypes to post on flickr.

Spatial View does better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26189605)

You get a panel for your phone, and their software interleaves the pixels so one eye gets one picture, the other eye gets the other picture, and you don't have to go crosseyed to see it.

http://www.spatialview.com/en/node/458 [spatialview.com]

ta3o (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26189657)

Soft3are lawyers FreeBSD's with any sort

was invented in 1859 by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. (1)

monopole (44023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189703)

WRONG!
Sir Charles Wheatstone (as in Wheatstone Bridge) invented the Wheatstone Stereoscope [wikipedia.org] before Sir. David Brewster developed the lens system attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Of course as with the computer, GUI, MP3 player, and cell phone, the stereoscope was actually invented by Steve Jobs.

Re:was invented in 1859 by Oliver Wendell Holmes S (1)

Richard Kirk (535523) | more than 5 years ago | (#26190475)

Yup. In 1934, Wheatstone demonstrated stereo using hand drawn figures. He then got onto his friend Fox Talbot, and they made stereo pictures. Perhaps there was only six months between the arrival of practical photography in Britain and experiments with 3D. It was sxhibited in 1838,

In Europe, Duboscq developed viewers that showed transparency stereo pairs. These became popular ince Queen Victoria had been presented with a model at the Crystal Palace exhibition.

The Holmes stereoscope was a simpler instrument without optics, and it used reflection images. These gave less intense images, but the stereoscopes and the images could be mass produced. You still find them in US junk shops. Holmes didn't invent stereography any more than Eastman invented photography or Ford invented the car. But he did make them popular in the US.

WOW, thank you slashdot! (1)

Commander South (1139931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189713)

I never knew of the technique listed here, and needless to say I am awed, I just spent the last hour and a half looking up stereoscopic images. Thank you for introducing me to this!

forgotten? are you kidding? (2, Insightful)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26189827)

Anybody who is serious about working with 3D data learns to view 3D images by crossing their eyes. And, no, you don't need an iPhone to do it.

Already done? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26189923)

3D in phone is already done, right?
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7209269.html [freepatentsonline.com]

Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26190935)

It should be noted he was a famous physician and author; penning not only a number of important medical articles but poems as well (including "Old Ironsides.") His son Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr was a famous American jurist.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr appears to be another of those New Englanders whose interests spanned a variety of topics and who had the money to follow their interests. Thoreau springs to mind as another.

Auto Stereoscopic Display for the iPhone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26190997)

A company called Spatial View is creating an auto-stereoscopic display, called 3dSheel for the iphone. So you have to purchase their screen, but it'll let you view stereoscopic images with out crossing your eyes, or wearing 3d glasses.

http://www.spatialview.com/en/node/464 [spatialview.com]

I'm blind in one eye... (1)

Draeven (166561) | more than 5 years ago | (#26191267)

...you insensitive clod.

Yes, these images are for parallel viewing (1)

waderoush (1271548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26191297)

I'm the author of the original article. Several commenters here have pointed out that the tutorial that I originally cited in the article was about cross-eye stereo viewing (in which the right image is intended for the left eye, and the left image is intended for the right eye), whereas these 19th-century stereographs are designed for parallel viewing (in which the left image is the for the left eye, etc.). That's absolutely correct -- my mistake. I've revised the article to link to a different tutorial, on parallel free-viewing. I've never actually tried cross-eye viewing, which sounds a lot harder. If you try to cross-eye free-view these images, they will indeed look inverted or flat. But once you get the trick of parallel free-viewing, the images should pop out at you, especially the best ones like the Brooklyn Bridge pictures at the beginning of the photoset.

"but one" what? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 5 years ago | (#26191609)

The stereoscope, that killer technology of the last century but one...

WTF is the "but one" supposed to mean?
And isn't looking cross-eyed at things hoping to see "3d" kind of silly?

Re:"but one" what? (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192093)

It should be "the century before last" anyway. The last but one means the 20th century, as we are in the "last" century at the moment. If you have the numbers 1 to 100, 99 is the last but one. The phrase depends on the direction of counting.

Was Monet using something related? (1)

jthill (303417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192273)

His Springtime Through the Branches and one of his larger water lily paintings "popped" for me this way: after looking for a while, I suddenly felt I was looking into the paintings.

And the way it happened sounds similar: I had heard that de-focusing on his paintings would make them different but equally beautiful.

The water lily painting (huge, done in dark colors, in a traveling impressionist exhibition that included works from private collections, at the LACMA in the 1980's, I can't recall anything more) just didn't look all that good to me, almost muddy-looking, so I figured there must be some reason it was there and tried that trick. A minute maybe, then, bam.

Ever since, I've tagged him as "the puzzle" because he was doing something your eye needs to figure out with eye-logic

Re:Was Monet using something related? (1)

waderoush (1271548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193241)

jthill, on this theme of the optics of Monet's paintings, there is a lovely poem by Lisel Mueller, "Monet Refuses the Operation [panhala.net] ."

Re:Was Monet using something related? (1)

jthill (303417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220885)

Thanks for the link, Wade.

Re:Was Monet using something related? (1)

Nesman64 (1093657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26216481)

After going squinty eyed on images posted above, I read your post as:

... so I figured there must be some reason it was there and tried that trick. A minute maybe, then, barn.

I thought, "That's a clever trick."

Re:Was Monet using something related? (1)

jthill (303417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220891)

Yeah, I don't think screenshots will do it. Maybe even a full-sized print, I don't know. I do know the water lilies one was _huge_.

Charles Wheatsone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205681)

Didn't he invent the steroscope in about 1830. Not Dr.Holmes.

A Lot of Bad Stereo (1)

WindShadow (977308) | more than 5 years ago | (#26284995)

Many of these images were taken with excessive spacing between the views, which makes things "pop-up" unnaturally. This is fine when used to add texture to something almost flat, at least compared to the distance from the eye to the object, but the Brooklyn pictures look particularly fake, and many others are "just wrong."

I used to do this for a living several careers ago, doing 1500x photomicrography pairs at a research lab. I have no trouble viewing, but some are not lifelike, at least defined as "as the eye would see it." An interesting collection for all of that.

When using a telephoto lens, the distance between views should be the interpupilary distance times the zoom, or 195mm for 3x zoom, as an example. Trying to show the contour of a mountain miles away, I did once use a separation of about 10m, but that was to compensate for the zoom and exaggerate the depth to locate features, and was not intended to be lifelike.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...