Ray,
Viewing Wojtek's image with my monitor and 3D glasses, I could see the ghosts but they were what I would call "faint", and well within generally acceptable limits for sure.
I've noticed that many members may claim viewing a "ghostless" image when in actuality the overlap can be seen (at least by some others) but is negligible as to be by all intents and purposes, "ghostless". To me that just means very minimal if at all.
I have some 3D glasses made by Rainbow Symphony that were made for the movie "Spy Kids III". They have darker f
ilters which reduce ghosting I would normally notice with other glasses but they also make the entire image view darker.
IMHO, it's also my belief that many anaglyph enthusiasts over time, become used to ghosts and build up a tolerance for them to a certain degree and they may subconsciously ignore the inherent side-effect the same way we ignore the ticking of a wall clock. After a while it's just less noticeable. Logic and experience tell me however, that the first-time or casual 3D viewer will notice ghosts before anything else. This is why I personally put de-ghosting at the top of my priority list when creating a 3D image. You've noticed here that others may have different priorities and that's their personal choice. As I've always maintained (for m
yself) and may recommend for others, an anaglyph may include compromising (not dismissing) certain individual inherent challenges for an optimum overall view.
BTW, why isn't "ghostless" a word by now? Same with "destauration" and "anaglyph". :)
My word processor which my email uses for spell checking doesn't recognize them as words.
Cheers,
Brian
My Flickr page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ur4chun8/
My photos according to "Interestingness"...
http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/Brian,Wallace,3d
My FAA Web page:
http://brian-wallace.artistwebsites.com/
Capture Outdoors Maryland: http://www.capturemaryland.com/users/Starg82343
To: anaglyphs(-at-)yahoogroups.com
From: rmd1943(-at-)yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:22:49 -0700
Subject: Re: [Anaglyphs] 1966 Bizzarini - car reflection experiments/Wojtek
| Hi Wojtek. On my monitor, this shot is pretty well flawless. It is perfect, and, I might add, interesting. You mentioned that it is a little ghosty. I see none. Zero. This brings to mind a remark that you had regarding one of my shots, saying that it was ghosty. ...I don't remember which one it was, but I do recall that I did not see any ghosting on that shot either. Now, I am thinking that it may be differences in our glasses, or possibly in our monitors, or maybe both. I just thoug
ht that maybe you would like to know. Thanks for sharing, Wojtek. Ray I --- On Mon, 3/18/13, Wojtek Rychlik <wr(-at-)pikespeakphoto.com> wrote:
From: Wojtek Rychlik <wr(-at-)pikespeakphoto.com>
Subject: Re:
[Anaglyphs] 1966 Bizzarini - car reflection experiments
To: anaglyphs(-at-)yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 18, 2013, 10:53 AM
Longs Peak near Estes Park, CO. Little ghosty, but I hope you'd enjoy it. I'd like to remind you that there is still time to enter Southern Cross exhibition. Andrew Read < mad3d(-at-)bigpond.com> is running the show. It's the cheapest exhibition sanctioned by PSA that I know of and lots of grab quality photos. It is closing on March 25th.
Cheers, W
|
(1101K)