Talk:Stereoscopy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

random cruft

From Stereoscopic_goggles:

Goggles which conretwtain two separate screens, for giving the appearence of a 3-d object. This is possible because each screen displays a slightly different object to each eye. The brain then combines these images to produce the appearance of a 3-d object.

Iainscott 13:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If it redirects here than stereoscopic goggles should appear (bolded as here) in the article. The question is, do both LCD shutters and active devices (small CRT or LCD screens) qualify? These are presently in two different sections. Leonard G. 15:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gallery Sites

This page attracts links to stereoscopic galleries that don't seem to belong in the external links section. I've thought about creating a Galleries section in this article, but am also considering a new page that lists online stereographic image galleries. I can't find good examples of either strategy on Wikipedia outside of a few art movement articles. Any suggestions? JeffJonez 20:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.3dphoto.net/ and the connected forum at http://www.3dphoto.net/forum/ have many pictures, but they may be discounted because they are amateur. You may, however, find some good examples, so take a look! (the forum has the widest variety of pictures, but as I said before, it is an amateur community) There are also some Flickr galleries.

Montymintypie (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I took the plunge and removed all non-information sites. I don't think theres a place in the pedia for a list of Stereoscopic Galleries, but who knows? JeffJonez (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:MrAdventur3 has taken exception to the removal of gallery sites, most likely including his (sweet3d.tv) and has reinserted the link at least three times in the last two weeks. I've asked for a decision on the inclusion of gallery sites at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests JeffJonez (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I did find a gallery subsection on the Visionary_art entry, but I'm sure such a link here would quickly swell to over 20 links. Still seems ill-advised JeffJonez (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible Source of LOTS of info!

I found a site that lets you download three stereoscopy books (older, so are legal) for free. The middle one, by McKay, is extremely informative, and can possibly count as a reliable reference. Can someone investigate and see if they can consolidate the book into the article? It could really expand the article, and is a great resource. If it can be consolidated, put something on my user/talk page, because I won't check here ;) Get it here: http://www.stereoscopic.org/library/index.html Montymintypie 10:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Color anaglyphs

What is the intended purpose of these -- is it simply to provide combine flat colour and stereoscopic monochrome information into the same image to be viewed separately, or is there some cunning way of viewing the colour and stereoscopic information simultaneously? -- JTN 20:04, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

The objective is to present both a reasonable simulation of the color information and the stereoscopic depth information. Note that this is both dependent upon the colors and textures used in the subject and upon the viewer possessing normal color vision (not colorblind). If in the images presented, which appear to the author (me) to be both colorful and stereoscopic, you do not perceive depth or color, you may have a visual limitation. Note that in particular, red-green colorblindness is quite common (I think 1.5 pct) among males). Compare the toy on the shelf pictures - one is in color, the other monochrome. As the monochrome uses red and cyan only, even red-green colorblindness should not affect the 3-D illusion. Please tell me how you perceive these two images. Note that images that have contrasting colors (especially in vertical stripes) that are selectively filtered may present false depth cues — such images are not presented in the article. Leonard G. 23:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Color anaglyphs

In January 2006 I inserted 2 modern, full color analyph images on the page. It seems to me that modern technology is of more general interest in its pure form, then taking an old stereo card and converting it to poor color anaglyph. Someone did that, some months back and gave this site as very "quaint" yet historically warped look. Stereo cards are not in anaglyph. There is little or no academic point to be made by converting a stereo card to an anglyph if it looks "tacky". What do you contributors think of the modern examples posted? I'm told that it is "taboo" to remove a picture, however bad. That doesn't make much sense if it is "cool" to delete several hundred words without a thought. Sorry, I don't know what happened to the funny anaglyph stereo-card of NYC. I would restore it, if that is the culture at WIKI, but it seems to have left the scene.68.125.20.11 06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Too few References??

What's that for a request on top of the page? There aren't many stereoscopy books or articles. These references would run into very short circles. You can't tag this page just because there are too few references listed. Someone checked the article by it's term and not only it's form? (unsigned comment, 19:14, April 7, 2007 62.117.1.116)

The reference section is truly in want of repair. Modern wikipedia articles cite published sources. Moreover, every paragraph should have an inline reference. I found 526 books with Stereoscopy in its title. Fred Hsu 00:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Standards for red/green(ish) anaglyphs

In my experience (mostly NASA and ESA images), these anaglyphs are designed such that the red filter should cover the left eye, and the green(/blue/cyan) filter should cover the right eye, as for the examples in the article. I don't recall ever having coming across a counterexample to this.

Is this formally standardised, or just a de-facto standard? Does anyone know of any significant counterexamples?

One answer to this is that you can open an anaglyph image in a photo editor and mirror the image. Then you can use the viewer reversed. I find this useful as the eye with the red lense tends to get sore. But if I reverse the image so I can reverse the viewer it reduces the strain on the one eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.69.117 (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, are the colours to use standardised? One comes across both green and cyan; my freebie ESA cardboard specs from a few years ago have a green filter, but cyan seems to be more common in images these days (again in my limited experience). (The green filter does an adequate job with these images.)

-- JTN 20:11, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Red-Green filters are suitable for viewing appropriate colorized monochrome (black and white) images only, and were the only practical means since these were easy filters to produce accurately and cheaply. The advantage in using Red-Cyan is that these colors are complementary. Any color will pass through one, the other, or both of the filters, allowing the presentation of color information (see note above). With Red-Green, the red filter will block out both blue and green, the green will block out both blue and red, so it is not possible to present a nice blue sky - it will instead appear dark. Note that black and white photographs with a dark (daylight) sky are produced using a yellow filter, which is the complement of blue. Yellow is white minus blue, or red plus green, while blue is white minus yellow, or white minus both blue and red. Red is white minus cyan, while cyan is white minus red, or blue plus green.

Breakup article

I'm thinking of breaking this article up so it isn't so long (ie make an article for anaglyph glasses, etc... and just making this a jumping off page for those articles). Any thoughts? --Ctachme 03:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm bored right now so I'm going to go ahead and do that, I suppose people can revert if they wish. --Ctachme 23:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3D imaging redirects here, but shouldn't, really. I was directed from Terahertz radiation expecting that to be about MRI, CAT, etc. — Omegatron 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible contradiction with Stereogram, which lists a different inventor of the photographic stereogram as 1832 - vs. Wheatstone in 1838. At the least the distinction should probably be made clear....

Wikipedia:3D Illustrations opinions solicited

Editors of this article may have interest and expertise that would be helpful in developing policy relating to use of 3D images here at Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:3D Illustrations and the talk page to participate. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that the policy against 3D illustrations in general would apply to this article. The policy would seem to apply against 3D renderings of a clock mechanism, or of an ant colony. This article is expressly about 3D illustration and stereography, and so 3D illustrations would rather seem to be appropriate in this limited context. Xenophon777 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Commercial links

Curious: Why are comerical software packages such as Edimensional and Anaglypher allowed to be listed, but any other software refrence removed. Is that like a kickback or bribe system or how exactly does this work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LionShare (talk • contribs) 23:20, 29 March 2006

Simple. Wikipedia has a policy regarding external links, but it takes someone to enforce it. Algae 17:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture problems

I am no pro, but I consider myself pretty good at free-fusing stereo images. The pair of Manhattan images at the top are simply too big for me to fuse. I think a reduced size, similar to those in the rest of the article, would be better. The easiest picture for me to see is the color image of corset tightening. Finally, in the lower pair of images of naked women, the images are swapped relative to the upper pair, which I believe is the correct arrangement. Note the artifact next to the pole in one image that is missing in the other. (Yeah, I know, I'm not supposed to be looking at the pole.)--agr 13:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read the article more carefully and it seems the switch is intentional and supposed to make viewing easier, but is sure does the opposite for me. Contrary to the caption, I find the top pair easy to fuse. --agr 19:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I too am good at viewing these by unfocusing my eyes, and I agree. I always bring them into focus by looking past the image, at or as near infinity as necessary to make my left- and right-eye images overlap. As such the top "parallel" nude is easy to view. Trying the same on the lower "cross" image makes it look almost hollow, ie concave. I am able to get the lower image to work by focusing in the air before it, and then carefully relaxing my eyes without adjusting them. At the correct distance it suddenly locks in focus, but I have trouble maintaining the image more than a few seconds. It's easier at a greater distance though. The point in either case is to make the focal depth of the eyeball itself different from the point of intersection of the lines of sight of the eyes. The lower image, when focused properly, seems smaller but more detailed.--Qaanol 23:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Image viewing problems - solution!

A couple of points;

First, the corset picture is round the wrong way (for stereoscopic images to work the left and right need to be reversed before viewing). I have swapped them using Photoshop so that they now work, but I haven't a clue how to post them on the site.

I have made a page on my own site that shows the corrected version: http://www.digital-photography-tips.net/wikipedia-3d.html

The version on my site is low-res because my hosting company doesn't allow large file sizes.

I suspect the same problem exists with some of the other images on this page, the old Manhattan one for example. This is why people are having viewing problems.

Second, I have a page on my own website that deals with how to make stereoscopic images. I would like to add it as a resource, but have been informed that I can't as it is my own site and Wikipedia rules don't allow this. Apparently someone else can take a look and add it if they feel it is worth it.

The url for my stereoscopic pages is: http://www.digital-photography-tips.net/stereoscopic.html

I'd be obliged if someone would have a look through this page (and the links from it) and add it to the resources if they feel it is appropriate.

Many thanks,

Darrell. --Dazp1970 14:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no standard for displaying stereo images on the web with regard to cross-viewing (left-right reversed) or parallel (left and right not reversed). I personally like parallel since this is the format used on stereo cards, and it allows use of a PokeScope viewer. It's also my opinion that parallel free-viewing is easier for people that have never tried either method. Some people prefer cross-viewing which allows them to see images larger than the interoccular spacing, but I believe these people are outnumbered by those that prefer parallel viewing. 12.15.160.6 13:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Jay M.

Although it makes it easier to view, the crosseye view is not correct, as the example is of a stereo card. Stereo cards were always in parallel format, to be viewed separately with a separate viewer. (sorry about the bad grammar there ;) To stay true with Wikipedia content, it should be shown as the original would look--Montymintypie 06:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

One more additional note: Although cross-eye images can be slightly larger than parallel ones the stereoscopic image does not appear larger since the brain realizes the merged imaged as hovering somewhere between the real picture and viewer's eyes. Thus, they appear as unnaturally close-by and small while the parallel method lets them appear as distant. Furthermore, the larger the cross-eye images are (and thus the required crossing angle for the eyes) the earlier the eyes may become tired, perhabs resulting in headache for some people. Parallel viewing, on the other hand, is more similar to distant viewing. Remember that binoculars and 3D head-mounted displays also use the parallel technique.--SiriusB 08:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Stereoscopically Impaired?

I have a problem that I have been unable to get any information about. I can see depth in all types of Stereoscopic images I've viewed. But I see the images separately at about the 3D focal point or a bit closer. That is, soon after the point at which the image 'leaves the screen' or the page, I see them diverged. I can see extreme depth, more so than other people I've asked. I have viewed stereoscopic images on a 132cm screen where the divergence was 122cm. Where as other people in my household saw these as two images at about 9cm
I can perceive T-38ondisplay.jpg‎ as 3D instantly, without even using glasses. Especially the area left of the plane. But only up to the dark area of the nose cone. I see the dark area and the antenna at a red and green images.
After a moment of staring, without glasses, the 1930_Cord.jpg image appears 3D, but only everything further away than the headlight on my right.
21st_century_engine_setup.jpg does not appear 3D to me without glasses. With glasses the results are the same, only instant.
I can see a Chromadepth effect always. Depending on the image size, it looks to be almost up to 1cm in depth. With glasses it is dramatically more effective, with some blue patterns seeming to be about 15 meters away. With or without glasses, Red just barely pokes out of the screen
I do not believe I have ever used compensating anaglyph glasses. I have yet to find a magiceye that I cannot see. Although magiceye images for me have another problem. Areas in the image, usually tiny ones corresponding to some of the 3D edges, break my perception if I try to focus on them. In this image, the entire area in front of the man's chest, below his right arm, and above the paddle's handle, is a problem area for me. No magiceye has ever appeared to 'come off the page' for me. I see only depth in them.
Wiggle stereoscopy usually doesn't work for me at all. I perceive the images separately on my side of the focal point and see depth on the other, when they do work.
I am slightly near sighted in my left and barely far sited in my right. My right eye was normal and my left only slight effected when I first discovered my stereoscopic impairment. As my eyesight has changed (worsened), my stereoscopic impairment seems to have remained constant. My glasses help me to see, but seem to have no effect on my stereoscopic impairment. Putting the filters in front or behind my glasses makes not difference. No optometrist I have spoken to has ever been able to offer an explanation for my condition. Several of these optometrists kept stereoscopic materials in their offices, from profession view-masters to toy ones, linearly polarized, cardboard red/blue, and Chromadepth. In offering their services they apparently had never encountered my condition before.

That's odd. I have bad 3d vision, so I do not naturally see in 3d. I need 'mechanical aid' to see 3d (an old fashioned stereoscope isn't enough, I need 'flicker glasses' or similar.) Yet I see the 'engine' picture as 3d unaided. Which is really odd to me, since it means that the engine 'leaps out', when the actual 3d environment I'm in doesn't. I cannot see magiceyes at all, ever, no matter what. Ehurtley 06:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Text removed from Stereoscopy#Wiggle stereoscopy

67.169.34.100 (talk · contribs) removed the following text from the Wiggle stereoscopy section:

To illustrate the difference between true stereoscopic formats and the two-dimensional "wiggle" method, consider what happens when a stereophonic music CD is played through only one loudspeaker: It is no longer possible to hear the stereophonic audio signal since it is now only coming out of one loudspeaker. Flipping between the Left and Right audio channels of the stereophonic signal through the one loudspeaker, the listener is still only hearing a monaural signal. By listening to the stereophonic music CD through stereophonic headphones that deliver the proper audio signal to each ear, the listener can experience true stereophonic audio. Similarly, the only way to experience binocular stereoscopic depth perception when viewing stereoscopic images is to use a device (stereoscope, anaglyph glasses, polarized glasses, shutter glasses) that presents each of the two eyes with the corresponding Left or Right image.

The user had earlier added the following comments to that section of the article (since removed):

Here is another writer, Igor Polk: "Since you started this discussion here, I want to point out to the problems in your logical reasoning. You sound like you assume that stereo sound exists only when stereophonic audio is played through the headphones. Man, you live in an artificial world. In reality, we DO hear audio-spatial distribution of signals scattered around in space. And I want to point out that EVERY ear receives sounds from the same sources. Human brain calculates difference in time when signal reaches receptors through ears, so it is able to find where the source of particular sound is located creating, so to speak, a 3-dimensioal map of surrounding objects. Vision has totally different mechanism. Spatial parallax is calculated for every recognizable part of the visual image, and then brain calculates 3-D map. This map is NOT in eyes. It is inside the brain. It is not what we see, it is the result of "processing". This processing is a mystery yet. Probably when images are delivered inside, as soon as they are taken with the distance from each other, the brain can find a way to assemble 3-D map. It may sound inconvincing, but have you ever tried "flipping between the left and right audio channel through the one head phone?" as you suggested? It probably will not work since time is needed for "flipping" and that offsets difference in time to recognize spatial differences, but it may will produce something. Who knows? On the other hand photo-wiggling does not affect anything. It actually helps to calculate spatial parallax. Time-time in the case with hearing, time-space in the case with sight. See what I mean? Thank you.".

Is the text removed by the anon user original research or should it be put back into the article? -- Paddu 09:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

new image (car)

I added the digital image of the yellow cross-view car to bring some modernity to the illustrations. The tone of the "bad rap" given cross-viewing as compared to proper "wall-eye" stereoscopes, is not factual. Wall eying can ruin yur vision permanently. That why parallel pair have to be very small, Crossing isn't nearly as bad as the phrase suggests. it is actually converging like you would to look at a small real life image, only passing that point in "limbo". It sound like B.S. to promote stereoscopes or modern viewers.3dnatureguy 12:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added tip 17 at the bottom of the page. This is because I feel that one area where stereoscopy really excells is in the photography of lanscapes.

I have also added an external link. It's to a page on my own website (non commercial) that deals with training the eyes to "fuse" stereographs. It will, I believe, help some readers of this article who may struggle to fuse the images.

Please feel free to edit/discuss these two additions to the page.

Please explain in more detail why wall eying (if done willingly, not due to Strabismus) could "ruin your vision permanently". If you have any references about possible risks than they should be given in the article.

The car image, however, is (even in the current version) for parallel, not for crossed-eye viewing (if viewed with crossed eyes the car appears to be more distant than the background).--SiriusB 08:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Phantograms

I recently discovered there's also this neat trick using anaglyphs called phantograms. They're just a distorted anaglyphic image made to be look at from an angle.

The angle gives it a "holographic" feel, as if the image was coming out of the paper (instead of normal anaglyphs that look like a window with a 3D image seen through it).

We could add a mention to the article, no? — Kieff 03:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to a user-created list of patents on stereoscopy

69.250.232.95 added the following wiki comment in the External links section in the article. I moved it here. Please use the talk page to discuss this type of changes. Also, it may help if you add edit summary when you save changes.

Fred Hsu, I added the patent list because this wiki site is cited in articles on both patentmonkey.com and CrunchGear.com as a useful resource when reviewing Stereoscopy patents, I'm sure you have seen the traffic increase today. I figured since the increase in exposure happened because of a patent article, that the link might also be useful to those travelers.

I removed the link to 'a list of patents related to stereoscopy by baltojackson' twice already, because 1) the page does not explain whether this is a definitive list of ALL patents related to stereoscopy or just a list created by baltojackson in spare time, and 2) this is an enclopedia article on stereoscopy, not on patents. It could be just me, but I don't think a typical reader of this article will actually proceed to investigate patents related to this topic after reading the wiki article. I am sure there are ways for people interested in filing patents to quickly find existing patents related to stereoscopy and other topics elsewhere online.

It is not clear to me that simply because patentmonkey has an article which links to wikipedia makes it obligatory that the wiki article link back to the site. Fred Hsu 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

the car image is all wrong

i have fixed it....Gandalf's-hat^talk 17:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Mergers ...

Would it make sense to merge the articles on "stereoscopy" and "Stereoscope?" The subject of stereoscopes would seem to be only a small subset of the subject of stereoscopy... Much of the material which would normally appear in an article on stereoscopes (e.g., 3D method, etc.) would have to be in the article on stereoscopy as well. Xenophon777 12:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of closely related pages out there which should probably be merged into Stereoscopy.. however, in a fit of un-bold-ness, I'd like to first point these things out to see whether anyone had an objection or a different view... Xenophon777 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles, such as anaglyph image, were once part of this stereoscopy article, but split out a few years ago as the article was becoming too long, and the derivitive articles have since been substantially expanded, making a merger inappropriate. Note first edit of anaglyph image "19:25, 23 April 2005 Ctachme (Talk | contribs) (from breakup of stereoscopy)" - Leonard G. 03:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no respose or comment, I am removing the merge tags - Leonard G. 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I do not think stereoview photographs should be merged with the other article. That would be a big mistake!--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merging is not a good idea. Stereoscopy is a broader subject than the present article would seem to indicate and might get too long. Stereo cameras likewise has considerable room for growth.--12.72.152.71 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

External Link Trimming

It started small, but I kept finding commercial and redundant external links. I was going to sort them too, but I don't see any external link sorting guidelines. They'll most likely get whacked again if they return without a good justification. JeffJonez 18:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Another round of link culling. Did I miss all those commercial / non-english links the first time, or were they just more forgivable than the first set? I'm also worried about all these galleries. Do they belong here?JeffJonez 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

History

Hey people, this article badly needs a history section. I think it is worthless without a section about its history. Please help if you can. Thank you.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiggle

Is it just me, or does blinking while viewing the "wiggle" example potentially enhance the 3D effect? It seems to me one can modulate the motion by changing the rate of blinking (rapid blinking). This alters the effect of persistence of vision, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.29.49 (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New 3D Glasses Method

Officially called "Dolby3D" (since Dolby obtained the technology and they are now commercially releasing it), but was originally called "Infinitec" (when presented at SIGGRAPH). This is related to anaglyph, since it is using certain wavelengths for either eye (anaglyph of course using all blue wavelengths for the right eye and all red wavelengths for the left eye). I've left more detail on the discussion page for Anaglyph image, since it might fall under that article. Whether or not it should be an article seperate from Anaglyph image, it most definitely deserves a mention under 3D glasses on this page. 69.12.141.101 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Over/under section !?

I am missing an over/under section for the method using KMQ prism glasses and others. I just started an open source / open hardware project related to this method, established 20 years ago and wonder, why the en section of the stereoscopic world seems not aware of it. Are there any objections to a) add such a section and b) link to the project ? Here is the link to the german wiki: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMQ Here are the links to the new (CC) licenced project: http://openKMQ.blogSpot.com, http://www.PixelPartner.de/openKMQ.htm PixelPartner (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Stereography or Stereoscopy?

Is not stereoscopy the viewing, and method of viewing stereoscopic images, whereas stereography is the production/creation of stereoscopic images? This article starts out "Stereoscopy, stereoscopic imaging or 3-D (three-dimensional) imaging is any technique capable of recording three-dimensional visual information or creating the illusion of depth in an image." A technique capable of recording, refers to the production/creation or graphic application, not the ability to view such creation. I did a search for stereography and found references to so-and-so who used stereography and about 6 entries down was stereoscopy. I would sugest that stereoscopy be a sub-catagory of stereography. A person who produces stereographic images is a stereographer or stereophotographer. Flight Risk (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Stereoscopy template

Should the stereoscopy template (in addition to the "display technology" template already in place) be at the bottom of the Stereoscopy page? I know this would have be helpful for me in finding the related topic of the "correspondence problem." --130.160.138.156 (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No pictures of an actual Stereoscope?

It's rather odd that of all the pictures, there isn't a single one of those hand-held wooden stereoscopes that were the rage from the 1840s through the 1920s which can be found at any antique shop along with hundreds of stereographs. I will try to remember to take a picture next time I see one and upload it, but if someone has one free of copyright then by all means upload it. I was trying to explain what those stereoscopes were to a friend so she could make some stereographs with her GT students, but I had to go to a site other than Wikipedia to show her. --Skintigh (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WARNING: Much is Backwards!

Do not reverse images when making stero pairs.

Much of the information on this page is completely wrong. The description of crosseyed viewing actually requires a form of walleye diversion that exceeds the parallel limit at infinity. They eye does not want to do this. The descriptions calling for reversal of stereoscopic images for open eye use are wrong.

Crossing the eyes fuses the images, not reverses them. Therefore, they didn't need to be swapped in the first place. People get themselves worked up by the word "cross", needlessly.

The reason stereoscopes exist is not to swap the images, but to allow them to be brought close to the eye, as they can then be much larger and would overlap. Stereoscopes deal with overlap, not swap.

This is the cause of a number of complaints people have in multiple sections below. Patients can even confuse their optometrists, because the optometrists assume the stereo images that their patients saw at home are placed correctly. People with Ph.D.s and major science sites get this wrong nearly all the time when making stereo pairs.

Worse, most of the websites on Teh Internets are wrong, because they copied off of each other. Some even have mixed types of test images, and do not mention this.

Be careful before refuting this: Your eyes use many different types of cues to create fusion, and can partially fuse a number of features, although the overall picture will have at least some problems. Try manually putting the images in the same locations that the eyes would have seen them, like a stereoscope does, and it will work great. Look at the old-time (unswapped) picture on the article page of two women, and it fuses great.

Please get it straight.

Poppafuze (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Stereoscopic image choice

I use the computers at the high school to do research. I am researching stereoscopes and stereograms. This is, of course, a very nice article, but I have a complaint: the picture of the nude women could have, if seen by the teacher, gotten me barred from ever using the computers again. Now, I realize that this is in fact an historical stereoscopic image, but is there another image that we could use that would be more high-school-teacher friendly? Thank you, Haruspex 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also say that showing the nude women is unnecessary. Talking about them is good. Linking to them, even a whole gallery of them, is fine. But having the image right there on the main page can only create unwanted problems for many legitimate viewers. It may not even be right, but is a fact.

Fixed. I agree, there is no reason to make a page school-unsafe if it's not about a school-unsafe topic. (The same image was on the 'Stereoscope' page, I removed it there a while ago, but didn't know it was here as well.) As I said on the Stereoscope talk page, I personally have nothing against it, but it is good to have Wikipedia pages safe for schools. Don't want students getting in trouble for viewing such non-controversial pages. Ehurtley 06:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell changed it back? Why? Really. There is no logical reason to use the nudie pics. None at all. My stepson uses Wikipedia at school (sixth grade,) and if a topic isn't inherently about a topic that involves nudity, it shouldn't contain nudity. My stepson shouldn't get in trouble for viewing nudity on a completely irrelevant article. If he's going to get in trouble for viewing nudity, then gosh darn it, I want him to be at least viewing a page where nudity is warranted! It's that simple. I'm switching it back to the pair of NYC pictures. Ehurtley 13:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, if there is some other image that works in all ways, showing an historical example, showing how things were first/more commonly used back then , with at least the same quality etc, it would be just a matter of unbiasedly evaluating which pic would improve the article more, and if they really need to exclude each other. But killing pictures just because they don't fit in your prudish expectations is not somthing that should be accepted in the Wikipedia, or else people will start putting pants on David and even more clothes on Venus... --TiagoTiago (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

NuView Camcorder adapter

It might be worthwhile to discuss the NuView camcorder adapter system. It is a device that can be applied to a camcorder. Using LCD shutters and mirrors, it breaks the view into two separate perspectives. The image can then be viewed on the television using special shutter glasses to see the video in 3D. --69.199.30.242 (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Stereoscopic geometry

I've written a detailed essay with images and maths on the geometry of stereoscopy. Should I post it?98.164.95.126 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion of stereo geometry in the article and a lot of it is incorrect. Unfortunately the task of rewriting it seems way too large for me to handle, especially since the geometry is much easier explained via diagrams, which I cannot create. There are two factors to adjust: the camera distance and the picture offset. Generally the camera distance should match the viewer's inter-pupil distance while the picture offset is adjusted to match screen size and viewing distance so that everything aligns correctly. In particular, far away objects should be on screen at inter-pupil distance (or slightly less to be safe), objects at the same distance as the screen should align and objects that come out of the of screen should be crossed (separated in the opposite direction). One thing to note is that picture offset is required for different screen sizes and the difference cannot be compensated by adjusting the viewing distance. Tronic2 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Viewing distance / screen size ratio should match image FOV (camera zoom), just like it should in 2D. In stereo3d both cameras should be facing in the exact same direction when the screenplanes of each eye are also in the same alignment (as is the case with all mainstream 3d systems). Camera separation affects nearby objects greatly while not affecting far away objects at all (two cameras 6 cm apart taking an image of the night sky are going to end up with the same picture). This needs to be complemented by picture offset that affects the position of everything: with zero offset the stars will appear on the screen depth, which is obviously not right. By applying 6 cm picture offset, the stars can be made appear far away behind the screen, as they should. Tronic2 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Autostereograms

In the section on autostereograms, it says 'so that until viewed by diverging the eyes' in one subordinate clause. I think this might be incorrect. I think you converge, or cross the eyes, to form the image. Divergence is when you move the eyes away from one another's gaze. For example, a divergent strabismus, or squint, is when one eye is moved out away from the 'primary position' and the other unaffected eye is picking up the area of intended gaze. Also, If I recall correctly, autostereograms are easier for the uninitiated if they deliberately cross the eyes, then slowly uncross them until the stereoscopic image forms. --Louispassell (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Autostereograms can be made for crossed and parallel viewing (converging or diverging the eyes, getting them closer or further). Though could that sentence actually have meant the gaze moving away, diverging, from the regular focus, the looking further from the picture, beyond/behind the page/screen, technique for viewing autostereograms meant for parallel viewing? If the shape on a autostereogram looks inside out, it's probably because yo'ure viewing it crossed when you should be viewing it parallel or viceversa. --TiagoTiago (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Need better exampels of wiggle stereoscopy

The one in the page doesn't work all that well, perhaps somthing like http://coolpics.110mb.com/galleries-coolpics/OpticalIllusions/WiggleVision/1-WiggleVision.gif or http://coolpics.110mb.com/galleries-coolpics/OpticalIllusions/WiggleVision/3-WiggleVision.gif if someone can find out if it would be fairuse, though there are probably lots more pics out there that would work better than the one currently used and are clearly marked as allowing this type of use. --TiagoTiago (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

wiggle stereoscopy copy-pasted from or to Wikipedia?

the text looks very much like what you find in http://www.blueswami.com/wiggle_stereoscopy.html , which came first? if it wasn't Wikipedia, that section needs quite a bbit of rewriting... --TiagoTiago (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiggle works based on the Kinetic depth effect?

Would it be original research to explain the depth perception in wiggle stereoscopy as being based on the Kinetic depth effect ? --TiagoTiago (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This effect seems to be specifically triggered by rotation, so it's not a slam dunk. It might be related, but solid citations would make all the difference here. Without them, I'd say yes: it's original research. - JeffJonez (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Move link?

The last link ("Hand-drawn stereoscopic pictures") doesn't relate to stereoscopy. I expected it to describe how to geometrically calculate stereo differences in drawings. Instead, the linked page describes how to scratch circular arcs in plastic to create holographic optical illusions. It's a rather interesting link, maybe someone can find a more appropriate place for it.

Integral Imaging

While this display method can exceed the binocular output limit of "true" stereoscopy, so can the the entry that references Displays with Filter Arrays (which may, in fact, be a form of integral imaging). Because lenticular, paralax barrier, and integral imaging can be designed to output in a stereoscopic fashion these techniques may merit inclusion in this article. Or alternatively, it may be advisable to remove entries that provide the ability to provide more than two isolated viewpoints.

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Good, but 30 days is too frequent: the last 12 months of talk is just over one screen full. Why not 90 days or even longer? Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Stereoscopy/Archive index is the archive, for anyone feeling lost. --- Rixs (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Prismatic & self-masking crossview glasses - not enough information

In that section the author mentions two new types of glasses (the "prismatic" glasses and the "variant wide format") but with no specific names or information at all that can be used to find out any further information about these alleged new glasses. Would be nice to have a name, a reference, a developer, anything. Inhahe (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

hi joshcena —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimandaggie (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Barack and Michelle Obama

Is it really necessary to have a picture of Barack and Michelle Obama on this article? I don't see that it adds any value to the article apart from demonstrating that he and his wife are trying to appear like normal people and would ask for it to be removed. Wikipedia is not a public relations platform for the Obama's presidency or the White House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.234.220 (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Get a grip, son. 96.245.254.46 (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Really. Would you suggest a picture of Sarah Palin watching 3D?Flight Risk (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Incredible artist

An interesting stereoscopic artist, Dimitri Parant [1] international congress stereoscopic Eastburn[2] [3][4]. Could you create a article about him, I'm new here and I do not know how, cordially--Thgiled (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone else pointed out on your talk page, there is a article-requesting page. If you feel so passionate about this artist, collect references and learned to edit Wikipedia yourself. Posting the same thing to multiple article talk pages isn't going to help you much. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Stereo Base

Because of the need for varying stereo base seperation of cameras to accommodate varying distances to subject or varying distances from the resulting stereo image the consumer product cameras described below with fixed stereo bases cannot produce correct stereo images for any but a single distance to subject to distance to image ratio.

That point of view is highly controversial and most stereophotographers agree that the fixed based found in most stereo cameras is perfectly acceptable for most of the pictures taken with them, and represents a good emulation of human stereoscopic vision.

The hyperstereo or "wide base" technique sometimes used for more distant objects, represents an enhancement over human stereoscopic perception and the exaggerated depth given by that technique tends to give the impression that the objects are miniature objects taken from closeup rather than large objects photographed from a difference.

Narrow base or "hypostereo" is often used for closeups and allows photographing objects that are too close for a normal stereo base. This allows stereoscopic photography of objects that people might have trouble seeing stereoscopically in real life.

While both of these techniques are useful, a fixed stereo base in the 50-80 mm range is quite acceptable when the main subject is about 7 to 25 feet away.

The fixed stereo base vs "narrow base" controversey, as you call it, is not a controversey it is disinformation. It was produced by well financed manufacturers of fixed base consumer product cameras to confuse buyers.

When an image is viewed, for example, of the statue of liberty on a computer screen the image is not the size of the statue of liberty. It is not the distance of the statue. It will never look the size of the statue. The image IS miniature. Miniaturization is a result of ALL photography not just stereo photography. It is disinformation to say the stereo effect produced by the correct geometric relationship causes miniaturization of the image. A picture taken from 1000 feet away from the statue with your narrow base line would result in a picture no different from a single camera picture. There would be no stereo effect at all. It would still look miniature.

Your example of pictures taken from 25 to 30 feet using a 50-80 mm range base is less than 1/4 of the correct base for viewing on a computer from 3 feet. Your resulting image will look like a miniature relief of 1/4 to 1/6 true depth. You would have to be 16 to 20 feet from the monitor to see full depth with such a narrow base line.

The true stereo pictures resulting from using the correct stereo base should not be called "hyperstereo". The pictures resulting from narrow base, incorrect base, should be called sub stereo because they produce a sub or non stereo effect.

If a sphere 20 feet tall is photographed and appears on the screen as a sphere and not a pancake or a football it is correct regardless of whether it looks miniature.

Taking a picture for computer monitor of the statue of liberty from a distance of 1000 feet would require a base of 100 feet. That's a difficult technical challange. All stereo pictures are difficult technical challanges. That's why so few stereo pictures are true stereo and why they give people headachs. People are trying to see something that in most cases is not there or is minimally there.

The use of the word "acceptable" in classifying results from narrow base stereoscopy violates wikipedia's neutral tone policy.

When you look at an image of the statue of liberty on your monitor of course it isn't as big as the statue of liberty. It is an image of a large object, taken from a distance, and that is exactly what you mind sees it as. If you look at the statue of liberty from 1000 feet away, the statue appears flat, and that is exactly what the mind expects. We are accustomed to seeing the moon as a flat disk for the same reason.

If we use a widebase, as in the hyperstereo technique, then a stereo picture of the statue of liberty taken from 1000 feet away takes on an abnormal amount of depth and the mind has trouble accepting it as an image of a large object from far away but rather sees it as a small object taken from a shorter distance. Those not familiar with the principles or technique often describe the effect as "fake", because it seems unrealistic.

Of course, depth can be distorted for artistic reasons, just as color often is, but wide base shots are not the most realistic, and should be used with caution. John Elson (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the appropriate primary treatment in the article of the subject should be in terms of Geometry. All three dimensions of objects represented accurately in miniature for large objects reduced by photography and small objects enlarged by photography. I would call this true stereo. This allows the subject to be understood in precise mathematc terms. Other issues can be discussed by their relationship to the true precise geometric stereo base ratio.

I disagree that the mind not accepting a small image of a large object as a large object has relavance to the subject. The moon represented as a 4 inch wide 4 inch high disk on a monitor should appear to be 4 inches deep. In effect 4 X 4 X 4. A real nice, sharp, beautiful 2d image may arguaby give an impression of size but that is irrelavant to stereo photography.

A secondary treatment of the subject could mention the issue of how in reality large objects at distance beyond true geometric stereo baseline of your eyes would appear flat in reality but the article should make clear that the narrow base photography for large objects at large distance will also not be stereo just as reality is not and would be a waste of time to photograph with a stereo camera with a narrow base fixed base. You could call it natural stereo even though it is a pointless exersize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.98.44 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC) I point out your first statement in this discussion

"most stereophotographers agree that the fixed based found in most stereo cameras is perfectly acceptable for most of the pictures taken with them," If they are using fixed base they are kind of stuck accepting the results.

Your continuing of that statement;

"and represents a good emulation of human stereoscopic vision."

Is not true geometricly using the distance from a monitor. A Stereo Realist camera, for example, has a base of 2 maybe 2.5 inches. This would only produce "a good emulation of human stereoscopic vision." if the object being photographed was between 24 and 36 inches away from the camera. If the object was 6 feet away it would be half depth and at 12 feet it would be 1/4 depth. less stereo depth the farther you get. That's why so many stereo pictures look like "stacked cardboard cutouts" at best and non stereo at all at worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.98.44 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

One thing I take issue with is your misuse of the term "narrow base" that would refer to a baseline which is smaller than the separation of the human eyes. What you are calling a "narrow base" is a normal base. A narrow base would be, say, 34mm such as used in the $5000 Horseman camera, which was produced by squeezing two smaller lenses into the lens board of an existing camera (despite the false hype that it was designed as a stereo camera from the ground up). That camera could be used for taking pictures in the 1.5 to 4 foot range, where a normal base would be too wide. That camera has a stereo window set at 7 feet, so pictures taken in the range for which is base would be ideal will require window adjustment that will crop the 7P images down to about 5P. People not familiar with stereo pictures might be impressed with some of the pictures taken with that camera from a distance of 4 feet or more, I am not, they appear rather flat to me.

Now, with regard to the moon, imagine a scene of a couple in their backyard looking up at the stars with a full moon low in the sky. Now imagine that this is photographed in stereo and the moon, instead of appearing as the normal flat disk, looks like a rough globe (which it actually is, those craters are deep!). Do you think anyone would believe that it is actually the moon in the sky rather than some kind of decoration that's been some how suspended? John Elson (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

s not true geometricly using the distance from a monitor. A Stereo Realist camera, for example, has a base of 2 maybe 2.5 inches. This would only produce "a good emulation of human stereoscopic vision." if the object being photographed was between 24 and 36 inches away from the camera. If the object was 6 feet away it would be half depth and at 12 feet it would be 1/4 depth. less stereo depth the farther you get.

This is another issue I have with your comments, you are taking a specific application of stereo photography, pictures viewed on a monitor, and applying it to stereo photography in general. The Stereo Realist was designed to take pictures that would be viewed with a slide viewer, a fairly immersive experience. Pictures taken with that camera and viewed as intended represented a good emulation of human stereoscopic vision at *all* distances. Of course distant objects didn't show depth just as they don't when you look at them with your own two eyes.

Your comments seem to be based on you own experience taking pictures under certain conditions and viewing them under certain conditions. This looks suspiciously like original research which is not allowed. Also, it is based on a very narrow application of stereo photography and is not true of stereo photography in general. It is telling that no references have been offered, let alone included in the article. Unsourced material may be deleted without discussion, especially when it runs contrary to the generally accepted views on the subject.

Also, it does seem to represent an opinion and yet is being presented as if it were an established fact. This is a serious neutrality issue.

The collective experience and wisdom of stereo photographers spanning three centuries is that for most stereo photographs a baseline bout the same as the average distance between the human eyes is all that is needed. Many scenic shots taken with stereo cameras include foreground objects which add depth interest and enhance the feeling of actually being there. Many reliable sources can be cited for the fact that a normal baseline is acceptable for most stereo photographs, and it is neither necessary nor desirable to customize the baseline for every shot.

Objects in the same photo appear at different depths, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in stereographing them (and this is also true of different parts of them same object), using your logic we would need to use a different base for each part of the picture, that would be impossible unless it is a composite and the result would have a very unnatural appearance!

I have no problem with wide base shots when they are appropriate , a picture of a distant object with a baseline of 8 inches gives a good representation of how it might look through a large pair of binoculars. That can be a very fine photograph and I personally enjoy such wide base shots. However, this represents a very narrow application of stereo photography and goes beyond realism.

It should be pointed out, and many reliable sources can be cited for this, that for wide base shots most professionals and serious amateurs use a 1:30 rule, not 1:15 or 1:10.

If we go in the other direction, narrow base shots, then it isn't just a matter of taste, a normal baseline is too wide for objects closer than about 4 feet or so and using most viewing methods anything close than about 7 feet will have exaggerated depth. I am also a big fan of macro shots taken with a narrow base, as this allows us to see objects in depth the we would not otherwise see stereoscopically. Indeed, many examples of such images can be found on my website at 3dham.com. This is also a very narrow application of stereography.

As the owner of thousands of Realist format slides, I can assure you that objects at 15, 20 or even 25 feet don't have the appearance of cardboard cutouts when viewed as intended. The effect is a good emulation of human vision. Digitized versions of such images viewed on a computer monitor may have the appearance you describe, but that is an extremely narrow application. Try looking at such images on a large monitor at a distance or with a projector on a screen several feet wide and you'll get a very different impression! Images optimized for a small screen viewed from a short distance would look unnatural when viewed under such conditions, and would mostly likely be very uncomfortable to look at. Indeed, they may not be viewable at all!

If you would care to rewrite your text so that it addresses the very narrow application you have in mind, and cites reliable sources, then it will be a good inclusion in the article. Otherwise, it is not appropriate for this article and violates several rules of Wikipedia. John Elson (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The "specific application", as you call it, of viewing on a monitor is to merely illustrate the geometry of the stereo setup. If viewing on a large screen 20 feet away then the geometry still holds as the distance of the viewing plane is taken into account in the baseline calculation. If you were taking a picture of an object 20 feet away and viewing it on a large screen 20 feet away then the two inch base of a realist would be correct. If the viewing plane was a monitor 20-30 inches away the base would have to be 2 feet to achieve the same stereo appearance. By the same geometry if you took a picture with a 2 inch fixed base of an object 6 feet away and put it on a screen 20 feet away the stereo effect would be very hyperstereo. It would pop out very unrealisticly.

I don't think there is a requierment on wikipedia for referances for simple geometric facts. It's not original research. But it is about a subject that has well funded manufacturers of fixed base cameras writing much to obviate the geometry of stereo photography. To convince the user of their product to be satisfied with the results. I have run into this resistance to the geometric treatment before from Realist and other fixed base camera users. Clearly you recognize and understand the geometric treatment. Surely you agree the geometry should have a fair treatment in the article from a non fixed base photographer.

Your illustration of the couple and the moon would be an impossible picture without post production compositing of the moon into the picture.

I agree to rewrite the article narrrowly tailored to be clear that the geometry articulated is not the only perspective stereo photography can be done to. I think we can agree that the geometric treatment is apropriate because it can be understood in terms of exactly the results the photographer can expect. But it must be understood as the mathematicly understandable base from which your non geometric perspective is treated so the reader can also understand exactly what he can expect using fixed base cameras. Certainly you would agree they should understand that. That is the kind of camera commonly available. Sony came out with a digital stereo camera just this year. It is the easy way to do the photograqphy. Unrealistic, misunderstood and obscured expectations have doomed stereo photography in the past and will do so again now that stereo is undergoing a revival.

While I have not posted my photography on the net I have posted many other stereo works on the net. I would arguably say that my works are more widely distributed on the net in photo collections in the genres they are made for than any other stereo work in any genre anywhere. You may even recognize my logo "SAMU". What stereo photographers using fixed base cameras agree with I'm sure you are more expert than I. But from all sources of stereo photography on the net in the genres I work in (mostly from fixed base photographers) what viewers collect and represent most in their collections on the net is my stereo work. If you want referances from a widely distributed, collected and well recieved stereo expert that's me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.98.44 (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the way it is written now seems to suggest that normal base stereo photography is only good from a specific distance and that at other distances the result will look like cardboard cutouts. That is decidedly false. A normal or close to normal base has been used by stereographers since the 1840s and is a good emulation of natural vision. This is not a myth or disinformation propagated by a specific company or groups of companies. It is a principle that goes back long before the era of David White.

The point is that for most stereo photographs a normal base is called for, and there is no need to change the base with every shot. It is only for specific applications of stereo photography such as hyperstereo and macro shots that the base needs to be changed. In these cases, it is desirable to go beyond normal vision, and the baseline is changed to distort the depth and produce pictures that do not reflect reality.

A distant object stereographed with a wide base can be a wonder to behold, but it is a very specialized branch of stereo and represents a tiny fraction of stereo photographs. It gives the impression that it is a much smaller object seen from close up, rather than a distant object seen from far away. It has been described as "giant eye vision" and that's pretty much what it is, it presents the scene as it would look if your eyes were several feet to hundreds of feet apart. Such distortions do have their place, but they don't represent general stereo photography and should done only with a particular goal in mind.

If you don't see it as looking like a miniature model rather than, say, a real mountain range, it is only because you have become accustomed to viewing images with such distorted perspective. I have in my collection a picture "Little Yosemite" taken with cameras that were a mile apart. When I show it to people through the stereoscope, I cannot convince them that it is the real thing and not a miniature model. The same is true of areal stereo photographs.

The "geometric" treatment as you put it goes far beyond the scope of this article and tends to confuse rather than enlighten. It gives the impression that normal base stereography will not give good results under most circumstances, and that is simply not the case. Most stereo photographs can and should be taken with a normal base as this reflects the reality of human vision and meets the goals most stereographers have in mind.

What has doomed stereography in the past, as far as the general public is concerned, is not that they weren't satisfied with the results of normal base stereography, but rather that it was just too much "hassle", one needed to view Realist format slides in a viewer, for example. The key to acceptance of stereography by the general public is to make it as easy as possible.

More serious users may want to experiment with more advanced techniques such as variable base stereography for hypostereo and hyperstereo.

As I mentioned before the perfect geometry you describe is impossible to achieve anyway, since different objects appear at different distances within the same scene, and without complex compositing you cannot achieve correct geometry in all parts of the image. John Elson (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

To expand on this idea a little further, it you take pictures with a baseline of 68mm you produce a picture as it would look if your eyes were 68mm apart. If you use a 2 foot baseline you'll get images that appear as the scene would look if your eyes were 2 feet apart. Neither will be geometrically perfect, but the former represents the reality of human vision, and the latter does not.

Of course, some viewing methods will distort the perspective and images optimized for viewing on a small screen from a small distance will require a larger baseline. Such images may look fine when viewed under such conditions, but will appear distorted and possibly unviewable when viewed under other conditions.

If, for example, a Realist format slide was taken from 24 inches away with the normal baseline of the Realist, as suggested above, the resulting slide would be difficult, if not impossible to view in a Realist format viewer.

Most stereo photographs should be taken with general use in mind, and not optimized for specific viewing conditions, thus rendering them unviewable with others.

Perhaps you should consider writing a separate article about stereo geometry and how different viewing methods affect the perspective of photographs, and a link could be included in this article to that article for those wishing to delve into such advanced subject matter.

However, this article should not be written in such a way as to suggest that normal base photographs will give unsatisfactory results for most subjects and viewing methods. John Elson (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It may interest you to know that during the Realist era there were table top viewers that featured screens only 7 to 10 inches wide. The depth impression given by these devices as a far cry from what was seen with regular slide viewers and stereo projectors. An avid user of these devices might have used twinned cameras or "stereo angle lenses" to increase the base of their photographs so that they were optimized for those viewers. The results might have been very pleasing to them, but their slides would be difficult, if not impossible to view using the far more popular slide veiwers and stereo projectors of the era. John Elson (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This article on stereoscopy is the correct article to put this in.

If you feel that describing the results of geometric stereo versus fixed base implies that fixed base is unacceptable you are mistaken.

You are correct that the geometric calculation does not produce correct looking stereo for any viewing distance. Neither does fixed base.

Understanding the geometry of steroscopy allows the reader to evaluate and choose for himself what results and method he wants. It allows him to evaluate the results of others in terms of that understanding as well

If it is your intention to continue to delete and or rewrite the geometric treatment on the steroscopy page and deprive the reader of this understanding I see no recourse than to apply for arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.98.44 (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I haven't done any editing yet, though Wikipedia rules do allow the deletion of unsourced material without disucussion. In cases where there is a conflict between sourced material from an established user and unsourced edits done anonymously, the former would take precedence over the latter. I'm not saying that this article shouldn't mention of the pros and cons of a variable baseline, but it should reflect the fact that a normal base line is quite acceptable for most stereo photography, and not give the impression that a photographer must use a custom baseline for each photograph or just not even bother taking stereographs.

As I said, I can provide many reliable historical and contemporary references supporting my position on this subject. If your "geometric" approach is as valid or necessary as you claim then you can surely provide references to support it.

Unsourced edits that reflect a view not held by the vast majority of stereo photographers represent a profound bias and violate the neutrality policy

As I mentioned before, the reason stereo photography has never really been mainstream and has often waned in popularity is because people find it to be too much hassle. Customizing the baseline for every shot adds greatly to that hassle, and is not necessary for the goals of most stereo photographs.John Elson (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Upon reading over our discussion, I find that in the discussion you eventually did a better job of making your point than was made in the article. It was sometimes difficult to tell which comments were actually yours, since they were identified only with an IP address.

In any case, I think we can both agree that using an ortho viewing method with a normal base gives the best emulation of natural vision, though it cannot give a perfect emulation.

I think can also both agree that when you are using a non ortho viewing method, such as a computer monitor, it might be desirable to use greater parallax to make up for the deficits of such a system. I think we can also agree that images made with a 1:15 or 1:10 variable base, or a 6 to 12 inch fixed base would cause problems if viewed with an ortho method and would likely be unusable.

I think we can also agree that compensation for the deficits of a viewing method and the need for a variable baseline for geometric stereo are two different topics which need separate subsections.

I believe we can also agree that geometric stereo does not supply the best emulation of natural vision and doesn't try to.

Also, anybody who has read through this article would find that was somewhat disjointed. Some parts were subsections of sections they had nothing to do with, the same topic was discussed in several different places at different depths and some topics were confused with each other in text that joined them together in a way that didn't make sense.

Also the topic of hyper stereo was in a separate section when it should have been part of the section on baseline selection.

There was also some confusion between objects poking through the window in a inappropriate way and the issue of too much parallax in nearby objects when too wide a baseline is used. The former can be addressed with proper window adjustment where as the latter cannot be fixed except possibly with some highly sophisticated and very expensive software. It might be a good idea to add a section on window adjustment to this article to clear up some of these matters. John Elson (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you've burried the short treatment of the gemetry of stereography under your lengthy apologia of fixed base. That obscures an understanding of the geometry. Your treatment still has problems with neutral tone. Your use of the words "good" and "acceptable" would be replacable with a more descriptive treatment of the results of that method. Your treatment would be much improved as well as shortened with more description of results of fixed base and less apologia for acceptance of results.

The section about stereo base should be near the top of the stereoscopy article as it is fundamental to understanding the topic. It should certainly come before the legion of stereo cameras and viewing methods.

The article should be organized as follows.

1) A description of stereoscopy in general.

2)Stereo base beginning with the geometry and the results produced, then a subsection on fixed base and the exegencies required of it and the results that can be expected. This leads into the section on cameras.

3) A section on cameras limited to history and specific variations that enhance an understanding of their effect on the stereographic results. It should minimize manufacturer's claims.

4) A section on viewing methods.

98.164.98.44 (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the vast majority of stereo photography is and always has done with a normal base (or at least with a fixed base that is near a normal base), I don't see why you think that variable base should be featured so prominently, that would reflect an extreme bias and would give a misleading impression. Most stereo photography has the goal of duplicating natural vision, and that is best accomplished with a normal base. This is not "apologia" it is simply the way it is.

Variable base aimed at obtaining "perfect geometry" fails even more profoundly in that goal than normal base does in trying to be ortho.

This article is supposed to be documenting not advocating, featuring a minority practice and viewpoint so prominently would be a serious violation of what Wikipedia is all about.

There are reasons for using an other than normal base in some circumstances, and that should be pointed out, as an introduction to further details about those reasons.

As for cameras, there is a separate article on that, and pages devoted to individual cameras.

You need to realize that your viewpoint on this subject is in the extreme minority in terms of both opinion and practice. Variable baseline stereography is an aspect of stereography, but it is a minority practice and should be treated as such. Treating it as the mainstream of stereography, as you suggest, would give a false impression and would not be appropriate for wikipedia.

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to advocate a specific view, especially a fringe view not shared by the majority of those interested in the subject. Nor is it to try to change views/practices to reflect what a small minority thinks is right.

The bottom line here is that you are trying to advocate the view that "geometric stereo" is the only valid form of stereo. This represents an extreme minority in both opinion and practice both currently and historically. Such a fringe view/practice should not be featured as if it was mainstream!

John Elson (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

3D is a geometric term. A geometric treatment of the subject is not an advocacy view. It is fundamental to understanding the topic.

Purporting that your lengthy treatment of the majority practice of fixed base stereo photography due to the simplicity and availability of fixed base equipment is preferable in understanding the subject is an advocacy view and is not true as far as understanding steroscopy. Absent the geometric treatment in advance of your treatment your treatment is very disjointed. The article as you wrote it is an explanation and justification (apologia) for the highly variable results from fixed base stereography.

Due to your (rather extreme) advocacy view you appear to see my geometric treatment as an advocacy view. It is not an advocacy view to describe the results of the geometry in terms that can be understood as what most people (non fixed base stereographers) expect and want in sterography. I don't say in the article that is a good result. I don't say in the article that is what most people want. I assume that given a good description most people can make the choice of what they like or think is good on their own. I'm sure you are quite familiar with people viewing your stereography and asking why is one 3d and why is another not and that they like one and don't like the other.

I suspect that your problem with the geometric treatment is that given the geometric understanding the inconsistancy in results of fixed base would cause the average viewer to understand, see and recognize the failings of fixed base stereography.

I have looked into arbitration. If you can't rewrite your contribution with significant reduction of your advocacy and a reasonable placement of the geometric treatment I think that arbitration is the next step.

Just remember 3d is geometry not advocacy. 98.164.98.44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

Actually, we are talking about stereoscopy not "3D" in a literal sense. The usual goal of stereo photography is to provide as close of an emulation of natural vision as possible, and you don't accomplish that with a variable base.

You are so blindsighted by your own opinion on this subject that you can't see how much in the minority you are. The only thing backing your point of view is your own opinion.

"Geometric stereo" as you put it, is not the mainstream of stereo photography and never has been. This article should not present it as such.

BTW, resorting to conspiracy theories about companies forcing a certain type of stereography on the general public tends to weaken your argument rather than strengthen it.John Elson (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not swayed by empty threats. In a dispute sourced edits by an established user will win out over unsourced edits made anonymously. John Elson (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)