Date   

Re: Phorlorn Phereo Phailed

robert mcafee
 

The renewal of the SSL is a formality (someone just needs to submit some documentation) or there is a cost involved?

As I recall there was some effort to pass the site over to someone who might maintain it. Perhaps the last person from Phereo who was doing some maintenance might renew. If there are costs involved perhaps this community might help with this.


On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:50 AM, Stereopix Net
<contact@...> wrote:
I believe the issue I am having with viewing has something to do with flask player. Perhaps my antivirus/firewall blocking?

As I said before, it is because their SSL certificate expired ("Valid from January 11, 2021 to April 11, 2021") and was not renewed.
Then the browser assumes that it is risky and refuses to load the images. 
 
Is anyone else able to access Phereo and view images on their site?

If you force your browser to accept the certificate, it would work. Perhaps if you change the date of the computer too (not tested).
Phereo official Android app, PhereoRoll3D, https://phereo-unofficial.stereopix.net/ are places where you can see the images despite the certificate error.

JackDesBwa


Re: Too little deviation?

Matej Bohac
 

Tom, your statistical evaluation is very interesting, thank you for this!

But as you write, the deviation reported by SPM's autoalignment cannot be fully trusted. I don't really understand why, but my experience is that this number rarely corresponds to what I come up with by measuring manually, and many times it is absolutely off.

Back to the original question George posted:

I often bracket the base when taking close up shots with a beamsplitter macro-box. So I end up with a series of images with various deviations to choose from.

My personal experience is that close-ups of flowers and similar objects often look more natural with a much smaller deviation than 1/30 in projection. Many images I project have as little deviation as 1/60 or 1/80, even if I had a whole range of versions to choose from.

So if I were a judge, I would definitely not consider 1/72 or 1/42 to be a problem by itself. The resulting impression depends on the object and composition.

Matej


Re: Phorlorn Phereo Phailed

JackDesBwa|3D
 

I believe the issue I am having with viewing has something to do with flask player. Perhaps my antivirus/firewall blocking?

As I said before, it is because their SSL certificate expired ("Valid from January 11, 2021 to April 11, 2021") and was not renewed.
Then the browser assumes that it is risky and refuses to load the images. 
 
Is anyone else able to access Phereo and view images on their site?

If you force your browser to accept the certificate, it would work. Perhaps if you change the date of the computer too (not tested).
Phereo official Android app, PhereoRoll3D, https://phereo-unofficial.stereopix.net/ are places where you can see the images despite the certificate error.

JackDesBwa


Re: Phantograms In Virtual Reality

JackDesBwa|3D
 

Okay, kids, if you wanna see something kewler than kewl, look the phantograms at http://Stereopix.net in VR with the OVR Toolkit.

If you are using a browser that supports WebXR (e.g. Firefox Reality, Occulus browser...) and select this mode in the viewer, the phantograms on Stereopix are displayed horizontally in the virtual reality environment.

JackDesBwa


Re: Ingenuity on Mars in 3D #stereopix

JackDesBwa|3D
 

Is it undergoing update, JackDesBwa, or hopefully not some problem with my browser/computer?

The problem was introduced with the update of the viewer on Stereopix (redundant command removed, but still used by this app).
It was fixed a few days ago, but the service which hosts it keeps restarting the app with an older version :-(
I will destroy and recreate the configuration in hope it would fix this.

JackDesBwa


Re: #3d-cameras #3d-cameras

 

My recommendation is the Sony RX100 ... * You have the option of several generations (from 2 to 7)

This Digital Photography Review page looks like a good resource for picking out which generation would be a good fit. I have been very happy with my Samsung NX1000 rig with the ring mount, but I have to admit I am getting really tired of not having an electronic viewfinder. The fact that all but the first generation RX100 has one is making me consider going down this road.

...BC


Re: Phorlorn Phereo Phailed

robert mcafee
 

Going to http://www.Phereo.com no images are displayed for me  I am running an older ESR version  of Firefox  I did not allow flash player to be uninstalled  

I believe the issue I am having with viewing has something to do with flask player. Perhaps my antivirus/firewall blocking?  Is anyone else able to access Phereo and view images on their site?





On Thursday, April 15, 2021, 12:26 PM, Stereopix Net <contact@...> wrote:

Phereo has failed again.  Website seems to be down.
Apparently, the SSL certificate for the server hosting the images was not renewed (expired about 3-4 days ago).
I changed https://phereo-unofficial.stereopix.net/ to ignore this misused security feature too.

but there are still features of Phereo I like.
JFI, which feature in Phereo is missing in Stereopix for you?

JackDesBwa


Creating And Viewing 3D Phantograms In Virtual Reality

 

Wait a sec, kids...
We should be able to create and view 3D phantograms in virtual reality just like we do in reality.
D'oh!


Re: Phantograms In Virtual Reality

 

Whoops. There's not very many 3D phantograms on Stereopix.net.
Who's got a decent collection of them we can look at in virtual reality?


Phantograms In Virtual Reality

 

Okay, kids, if you wanna see something kewler than kewl, look the phantograms at http://Stereopix.net in VR with the OVR Toolkit.
Use SBS mode in both, place the phantograms flat on a surface, back up to the magic 45 degree angle, and buh-buh bingo!
 
 
I might try this the next time I'm on the golf course!


Re: Ingenuity on Mars in 3D #stereopix

Gordon Au
 

This tool hasn't been working for me for a couple of days (https://mars.stereopix.net/)—the gallery for each Sol displays, but when clicking on any matched pair, it doesn't displays the stereos, though it does take time to load them, and does show the links. Is it undergoing update, JackDesBwa, or hopefully not some problem with my browser/computer? Thank you again for the great tool!

- Gordon


Demo of Midas AI 3D movie The Australian Logie Awards 2019 3D via MiDaS AI Hybrid

Philip Heggie
 

The Australian Logie Awards 2019 3D via MiDaS AI Hybrid

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16mL3AlnNCsdRyxbEsWtIhSh6OLmNUZiK/view?usp=sharing

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


Antique Stereographs At The Golf Course

 

I'm looking at some antique stereographs at the golf course:
 


Re: Too little deviation?

Tom Stremlau
 

I have spent many hours searching PubMed trying to find an answer to "what’s the maximum acceptable stereo deviation”.
Stereo acuity varies so much, no-one seems to have found a good compromise. 
I was impressed by Martin S. Banks. He has some interesting thoughts on what is acceptable on a 3D display.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUdKyKEG3Rc

I never thought much about the minimum deviation.  
The literature seems to indicate that 50% of the population can detect somewhere between 20 to 80 seconds of arc. 
And 98% can detect 120, or less, seconds of arc.  So I guess that’s a good starting point.

But I do have some data you may find interesting.

Since I could never find a really good answer to what is the acceptable range of stereo deviation to satisfy the majority of the population,
I wondered “What range of deviation do we see in good stereo photos?”

The Chicago Stereo Camera Club has been hosting the Lighthouse International Exhibition of Stereo Photography, and since 2005 we have been 
projecting the show using digital projectors.  I put together the shows, so I have all the accepted images, both digital and scanned film.  
So what is the distribution of stereo deviation in these pictures?

I had 1418 stereo pictures, all scaled to 1024/768 for our projectors.
I ran them all through StereoPhoto Maker and saved the alignment report files.
I pulled out the total stereo deviation from these files and made a histogram of the results.
Note that StereoPhoto Maker does not always report accurate deviation measurements. But I don’t have the time to check them all manually!

Here is the histogram of the data.

I guess it’s not surprising that the average deviation was almost exactly 1/30 of the width.     The Median is 29.   The Mode is 21.
Most people do use less deviation than the 1/30 rule.

I checked SPM on the slides that had 1 or less pixels of deviation.  Sure enough, there were some flat photos in the show over the years. 
Generally landscapes that had really good pictorial stereo cues that fooled the judges into thinking they were viewing stereo.
When I checked pictures where SPM reported deviations greater than 100, I found that SPM was often in error. So I imagine that some 
of the larger deviations on the chart may be errors.  But we do get accepted slides that I can’t merge.  

Not sure how accurate it is, but it is interesting!

TomS



Re: #3d-cameras #3d-cameras

Depthcam
 

Just to be more specific in regards Canon cameras, most actually have mini USB ports.  Only some of the more recent models ave micro USB ports.  So the choice of cable depends on the choice of camera model.

Francois


Re: #3d-cameras #3d-cameras

Depthcam
 

Are you new to stereo photography ?  If not, what have you been using so far ?

Currently, there are two ways to get good sync and it's entirely dependent on you using one of two brands of cameras:  Canon or Sony

For Canon cameras, there is a program called SDM that allows you to connect any number of certain models of Canon compact or EOS cameras.  The cable required is a simple USB cable connected to a switch.

For Sony cameras, it's possible to connect them using a multiport cable and triggering one camera will trigger the other.  There is also a custom cable designed by Werner that adds the possibility of turning the cameras on together.

With both Canon and Sony cameras, the sync does not work as well on all models.  In fact with some models, it does not work at all.

Another consideration is your budget.  Sony cameras are all pretty expensive while you can get Canon compacts that produce very good results at extremely low prices.

In reference to your question about cables, Sony cables are readily available while the cables used for Canon are regular micro USB cables.

Francois


Re: #3d-cameras #3d-cameras

George Themelis
 

My recommendation is the Sony RX100

 

  • It is a highly acclaimed travel camera
  • Very reliable, backed my Sony’s reputation
  • You have the option of several generations (from 2 to 7)
  • You can buy these new, or save money and buy used
  • The cameras show excellent synchronization
  • The connections are simple – I can provide the cables

 

I am currently enjoying my pair of RX100 VI. Features:

  • Fixed lenses (per your request)
  • I bought them used and saved money
  • Equivalent focal length: 24-200mm (quite a range)
  • Most people use these cameras at the wide end (24m). I prefer using mine at 35mm and often longer, including the longest range. Matching the FLs is not a problem using the zoom step mode.
  • f-stop: 2.8-4.5
  • I have already won several awards with pictures take with these cameras

 

I have also tried (and some friends of mine are using) the RX100 II, an earlier model, but very capable. You can find these used for less. The focal length range is 24-100mm.

 

There are several ways to arrange these cameras (all RX100):

  • Side-by-side (SBS) touching or separated at will
  • SBS but staggered (overlapping) to reduce spacing
  • Z-configuration (there are z-bars available)
  • Bottom-to-Bottom (BTB) to reduce lens spacing even more

 

I have tried all these methods and can give recommendations. I also supply twin camera bars. I have taken quite a few hypers and plan to continue taking more.  Fun cameras to use, not too bulky or heavy. A very good choice, IMO.

 

George

 

 

From: Yuriy via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 12:28 PM
To: main@photo-3d.groups.io
Subject: [Photo-3d] #3d-cameras

 

Hi guys! New here! I wanted to ask, what is the current go-to hassle-free way to make a stereo rig with fixed-lens cameras for high separation/stereobase?
Just from browsing around, seems there are either sync issues/various quirks, OR you need to use a 10 year old camera with some super-custom cable that, if it where to stop working as cables tend to do, there would be no guarantee of getting a new one

 


Re: Too little deviation?

robert mcafee
 

I was just reading a technical publication about a method using depthmaps that would automatically adjust the deviation depending on the display method (phone, desktop display, cinema screen).

Bob


#3d-cameras #3d-cameras

Yuriy
 

Hi guys! New here! I wanted to ask, what is the current go-to hassle-free way to make a stereo rig with fixed-lens cameras for high separation/stereobase?
Just from browsing around, seems there are either sync issues/various quirks, OR you need to use a 10 year old camera with some super-custom cable that, if it where to stop working as cables tend to do, there would be no guarantee of getting a new one


Re: Too little deviation?

John Rupkalvis
 

As I have pointed out many times, stereoscopic imaging is subjective.
The best amount of deviation for one image is not necessarily the best
for another. The amount of deviation selected for each image should
be selected individually based on all of the parameters of that
specific image, and the conditions under which it will be viewed.

On 4/18/21, Jorge Westendarp <jw@pontema.org> wrote:
A recommendation I would consider is this: make the *viewing conditions of*
*every* *stereo image always explicit* and firmly coupled to each particular
stereo pair.

If you make an image (deviation included) to be viewed (and judged) at a
*slide-show* , and that's the way "YOU find it correct" to be viewed without
eyes strain but with "the right" depth, do include with your image that
viewing conditions, something like:

(These are examples only, not to say that these numbers are correct!)

"Best (correct? only? recommended?) viewing conditions:
- Viewer age: more than 10 years
- Viewer IPD: 65 mm
- Viewing mode: projection
- Projected image size: 10 ft. wide (exactly)
- Viewing distance: 15 - 25 ft.
- Viewing duration: less than 90 sec.
Creator's NOTICE: any changes to this viewing conditions *may cause too much
or too little stereo effect*."

And you could prepare the same stereo pair now "correctly built (by
creator's standards)" to be viewed as a *printed* stereo card.
Then it could include a message like this:

"Best viewing conditions:
- Viewer age: more than 2 years
- Viewer IPD: 58 - 75mm
- Viewing mode: printed "Holmes standard" stereo card
- Viewing device: Holmes-Bates stereoscope, or equivalent
- Viewing distance: 7 in.
- Viewing duration: up to 5 min.
Creator's NOTICE: any changes to this viewing conditions *may cause too much
or too little stereo effect*."

And now the same stereo image "correctly made –once again, deviation
included– and correctly built (by creator's standards)" to be viewed as a
huge *anaglyph* billboard would need of course a different message.

All this is something we would never imagine being part of some *making and
viewing* "best practices" of any 2D photo.

But, as I have found, stereo photography is a another photography.

Jorge





--
John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

[image: Picture]

1201 - 1220 of 130572