(In reply to)
Messages on Anaglyphs group
Post on Anaglyphs group
Viewed
> For my opinion this "bis" image is equal to the first one, but it is
> inferior....
> The only difference is that you distorted the vertical part of the scene (
> trapezoidal distortion ) in Photoshop.
> The result is only: the background is falling over ( supine)...nothing
> else.....
> I'm wrong? :-)))
Of course you are ! :-)
First, there is no over sized and prised editor on my PC.
Second, nothing has fallen back in this anaglyph and no trapezoidal deformation has been introduced.
What I did is increment the disparity in the background scene by introducing a horizontal skew of the red channel, starting from the shoreline upward. It is tuned to my personal liking to minimize the difference between monocular and binocular vision.
As you know the disparity depth cue goes max 100m far.
From there on other (monocular) cues become dominant.
This is so in the real environment but not in a desktop monitor view.
Test: as you are reading this, close one eye to realize that your PC and room are not turned into a painting (keep their depth). Now do the same looking at the HD-2 anaglyph ( http://abdownload.
Don't ask me why (maybe the accomodation-
Incrementing the base is no option to me:
it takes the sense of reality from the picture by deforming the most interesting part (foreground) to reintroduce some depth in the least interesting part.
A better option is to introduce artificial disparity in the distant part while keeping the foreground intact.
This disparity can come from an extra (3th) picture or can be created using a 2D-3D convertion.
Looking at the result ( http://abdownload.
