deviant art

Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×

Shop Similar Prints

More from ~torres-mello


×

727

5 22 35
Download JPG 1000 × 393
Ok, this is going to be a little hard to explain.
This kind of shot is called stereoscopic shot.
Basically, each one of the images was obtained dislodging the camera by a couple of inches.
The result you get is two almost identical images.
The thing is, each one of them corresponds almost exactly to the image that each eye receives when looking to the same scene.
To visualize the 3d effect, you must cross your eyes (it's a bit hard, but it becomes easier with practice) until the two images merge into a central one. Try to still your eyes, and they will focus on this image.
The result is quite astonishing
Good luck!

Details

Stats

Submitted on
December 11, 2007
Image Size
213 KB
Resolution
1000×393
Views
727
Favourites
5 (who?)
Comments
22
Downloads
35

Camera Data

Make
SONY
Model
DSC-W1
Shutter Speed
50/10 second
Aperture
F/2.8
Focal Length
8 mm
ISO Speed
100
Date Taken
June 1, 2007
URL
Thumb
Embed
Only verified accounts can report policy violations. Please check your email and click on the verification link.
* Required field
Add a Comment:
 
:iconwbbk7knu:
I must help you, i feel, when trying to do stereoscopy on further bigger things you should have the two cammera shots seperated by more than a few inches, like for the buildings to look 3D you might have even wanted the two camera shots to be 4 feet apart. depending on how you like it best you can separate the camera shots as little or as much as you want. But again the picture was taken a long time ago, you probably already learned this. have fun.
Reply
:iconwbbk7knu:
Maybe shots even 10-20 feet apart (if you were able) for hyper stereo, would make the buildings look small and very 3D
Reply
:iconlbradshawphotography:
my eyes are clearly broken :(
they refuse to do what you say
Reply
:iconseviexe:
~seviexe Jan 18, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
Only practice makes perfect, when it comes to stere-pictures :)
Reply
:iconstefmixo:
~stefmixo Dec 28, 2008  Professional Photographer
Since the buildings are far from you, I think you should have exagerated the distance between the shots because from this distance, it looks almost as flat as the 2D version. No offense, just MY opinion. ;-)
Take a look at my 3D pics to see what I mean [link]
Reply
:iconseviexe:
~seviexe Jan 18, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
Unfortunately, I have to agree to what you said.

While making something meant for parrarel view, you have to keep a composition in which a very limited amount of objects would be invisible in one of the photos. And it's practicaly impossible to do while photographing a city.
To picture what I mean, look at this amazing example I found while looking on 3dphoto.net forums:
[link]
See? The objects don't hide, they are showed from different perspective. And because of that, your mind can process it much more seamlessly.
Reply
:iconstefmixo:
~stefmixo Jan 18, 2010  Professional Photographer
;-)
Reply
:iconseviexe:
~seviexe Jan 18, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
Sorry, I didn't mean "parrarel view", I meant "stereoscopic view".
Shit happens when you think about three things at the time :)
Reply
:iconxxxbiancaxxx:
I made it work hehe :D I really like it :)
Reply
:icontorres-mello:
~torres-mello Jul 2, 2008   Photographer
thank you!
Reply
Add a Comment: