Duke, notice I do not have too an unlimited time for my own private family and travel pictures to attempt reaching perfection but it is interesting sometime to mention what a  small modification could bring.
I try only to do this for customers orders of 3D pictures, conversions 2D to 3D... like you will do too of course.
So yes, many of my private pictures have not a perfect mount and modification It is because I wrote : it  is may be not necessary for amateurish (mind too private pictures same as if 3D professional). In France we says a man making good shoes repair have generally bad shoes (no time for him;-)
 Well I just told you what I will do if such picture was for a customer in order to do not write only : nice picture ! Sometime I do but a bit easy ! In add like I appreciate so much your fun, special effect and pictures I suppose my eyes and brain are a bit more exigence with you and some others. Sorry for that. I permit to make criticisms only to people I like pictures and I hope to got the same return about my picture. I prefer a criticism than "nice picture only " !
Regarding the interaxial used which created an unnatural bending effect on the front of the gun... Yes, what I will do (if professional order) with Photoshop will be to delete some stars and to enlarge the cosmic gas cloud to avoid some disparity... like effectively the picture would have been easier on the eyes if the overall range of depth had been reduced (other solution). Photoshop permit to modify many things not only background but pop-up too and to reduce or enlarge a negative or positive parallax is easy... A first subject in front like the snake below  can be put behind the window without put the hand behind too.
Digital permit so many correcting, transformations after a shoot.


 

Jm


Le 28/02/2014 20:34, Duke a écrit :

 

Well, Jean Marc, we amateurs in this group just enjoy creating and sharing our less-than-professional pictures.  I could certainly add even more criticisms to my picture if I chose to do so.  The camera-to-subject distance was too little for the interaxial used which created an unnatural bending effect on the front of the gun.  I'm surprised you didn't notice THAT.  The picture would have been easier on the eyes if the overall range of depth had been reduced.  As for the monocular disparity you mentioned, it is only noticeable on the right edge where the same stars don't appear on both images.  Just one more inherent shortcoming of the anaglyph process. 

I don't have an unlimited amount of time to attempt reaching perfection on every stereo that I take, especially in this case of a "fun" shot like this.  I have been creating stereo photographs for years, so if a piece meets my standards, that's all that's required.  If someone if going to pay me big bucks for a work, then yes, I would pay more attention to fine detail.

Duke

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:59 AM, forum(-at-)trivision3d.com <forum(-at-)trivision3d.com> wrote:

 

I like it, nice pop-up effect,... just some stars doing monocular disparity back the pop-up gun part and disturb my eyes like a magnet on those stars, but it is the gun the main subject !
Of course in natural moving vision a monocular disparity  is normal and with 3D video too if camera traveling (not fix plan), but fix stereo picture is not natural moving vision and need much more attention when their is contrast. 3D movie makers (or people making 2D to 3D conversion) make correcting too on such trouble.
If  poor contrast a monocular rivalry density is not a trouble.
Notice what apply 3D pro (me too for editors, printers and pub agencies) is may be not necessary for amateurish 3D pictures and our vision (brain) compensate a lot.


Jm

Le 28/02/2014 07:36, Duke a écrit :

 

topic (4)

Attention new and "digest" subscribers: http://abdownload.free.fr/ is the Anaglyphs archive link that includes the photos as well.

Visit Your Group

? Privacy ? Unsubscribe ? Terms of Use

.