Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [3D-Stereograms] StereoBurbs

Expand Messages
  • Dmitriy Bessmertny
    Hmm, I don t remember I ever had any issue with spheres in 3D arrays. Definitely it should be rotation transformation, not offset. I do see something is not
    Message 1 of 7 , May 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hmm, I don't remember I ever had any issue with spheres in 3D arrays. Definitely it should be rotation transformation, not offset. I do see something is not right with the Moons on Gene's stereogram, but I can't really tell what it is.

      Here is my old work for the reference:
      3Dimka ;)


      On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 5:54 AM, Leon Sarfati <jaysarfati@...> wrote:
      Hi Gene.  Interesting!  I've been giving the peaking problem some thought and I suspect the problem lies in the amount of rotation applied along the y-axis of the objects in your array, whether it's the sphere or it's the map you're rotating.  Here's the thing.  If you don't rotate the objects in your array, in this case,  the moon, the array will look like floating china, right?  The more you rotate your moon along the y-axis, the more "body" your object will have until the disc becomes a sphere.  Peaking, which is the the distortion of a sphere due to apparent bulging along the z-axis happens when you apply too much rotation on the y-axis relative to the perceived distance of the object (which is, in turn,  determined by the distance between the objects in your array:  the closer they are to each other, the nearer the array is to the observer).  The brain reconciles the rather extreme changes in viewing angle by concluding the object is not round but instead an oblong.  What do you think?  3Dimka, any ideas?

      BTW, I think your clouds look great, Gene.  What program are you using to render your clouds?


      From: G Levine <mail.gene@...>
      To: 3D-Stereograms@yahoogroups.com 
      Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:47 AM
      Subject: [3D-Stereograms] StereoBurbs

      The theme is obvious here so I won't go into that.  
      I've never overemphasized relative sizing, and after sticking a large house into a small cup, relative sizing gets thrown out the door with a giant cat.
      This is a new cloud treatment for me.  I blended them onto a background gradient.  Interesting enough to experiment with some more.
      Over the years I've tried coming up with an Earth's moon array and never been particularly happy with them.  I usually rotate a sphere mapped with photo of the moon.  This time I rotated the map over a fixed sphere.  Anyhow, same problem I always get: some of the moons look "peaky" (egg like) instead of spherical, and some look decently spherical.  I think it's the texture.
      I tried to add other elements to this OAS (object array stereogram) but there reaches a point when any more elements start to obscure the others and you have to stop.

      Gene





      by Gene & Gary










    • Wojtek Rychlik
      It s budding forward (10 o clock direction). I ll grow into a double sphere ;-) Wojtek
      Message 2 of 7 , May 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        It's budding forward (10 o' clock direction). I'll grow into a double sphere ;-)
        Wojtek


        On May 2, 2012, at 9:36 PM, Dmitriy Bessmertny wrote:

        Hmm, I don't remember I ever had any issue with spheres in 3D arrays. Definitely it should be rotation transformation, not offset. I do see something is not right with the Moons on Gene's stereogram, but I can't really tell what it is.

      • G Levine
        I just reviewed over 10 years of my spheres used in OAS (object array stereograms). In retrospect, I think the peaky egg shape is an innate tendency of
        Message 3 of 7 , May 3, 2012
        • 0 Attachment

          I just reviewed over 10 years of my spheres used in OAS (object array stereograms).   In retrospect, I think the peaky egg shape is an innate tendency of mapping texture onto spheres created by any means.  I create spheres in significantly different ways, but I think results are usually the same.  Unless it is my personal visual perception, I think an evenly spaced and centered spherical array, at best, will have a slight egg shape that is weighted more and more towards the center as my vision moves in from the sides.  I see this in 3Dimka's moons as well--though not as much as in my latest.

          The same effect appears even if sphere is more flattened than round, but the rounder it is the more apparent it is.  Beyond round you got yourself an egg.  

          I'm thinking texture makes a big difference.  On the attached oldie from 2001 the top and bottom rows of spheres are made with the same parameters.  To me, the bottom appears to be a much better sphere and I can only surmise that comes from different texture, but I am not sure at all.

          I just remembered that gold pattern was originally made on my Atari computer.  Those were the days . . .

          Gene




            




          On May 2, 2012, at 8:36 PM, Dmitriy Bessmertny wrote:

           

          Hmm, I don't remember I ever had any issue with spheres in 3D arrays. Definitely it should be rotation transformation, not offset. I do see something is not right with the Moons on Gene's stereogram, but I can't really tell what it is.


          Here is my old work for the reference:
          3Dimka ;)


          On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 5:54 AM, Leon Sarfati <jaysarfati@...> wrote:
          Hi Gene.  Interesting!  I've been giving the peaking problem some thought and I suspect the problem lies in the amount of rotation applied along the y-axis of the objects in your array, whether it's the sphere or it's the map you're rotating.  Here's the thing.  If you don't rotate the objects in your array, in this case,  the moon, the array will look like floating china, right?  The more you rotate your moon along the y-axis, the more "body" your object will have until the disc becomes a sphere.  Peaking, which is the the distortion of a sphere due to apparent bulging along the z-axis happens when you apply too much rotation on the y-axis relative to the perceived distance of the object (which is, in turn,  determined by the distance between the objects in your array:  the closer they are to each other, the nearer the array is to the observer).  The brain reconciles the rather extreme changes in viewing angle by concluding the object is not round but instead an oblong.  What do you think?  3Dimka, any ideas?

          BTW, I think your clouds look great, Gene.  What program are you using to render your clouds?


          From: G Levine <mail.gene@...>
          To: 3D-Stereograms@yahoogroups.com 
          Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:47 AM
          Subject: [3D-Stereograms] StereoBurbs

          The theme is obvious here so I won't go into that.  
          I've never overemphasized relative sizing, and after sticking a large house into a small cup, relative sizing gets thrown out the door with a giant cat.
          This is a new cloud treatment for me.  I blended them onto a background gradient.  Interesting enough to experiment with some more.
          Over the years I've tried coming up with an Earth's moon array and never been particularly happy with them.  I usually rotate a sphere mapped with photo of the moon.  This time I rotated the map over a fixed sphere.  Anyhow, same problem I always get: some of the moons look "peaky" (egg like) instead of spherical, and some look decently spherical.  I think it's the texture.
          I tried to add other elements to this OAS (object array stereogram) but there reaches a point when any more elements start to obscure the others and you have to stop.

          Gene


          <stereoburbs_g-levine.jpg>



          by Gene & Gary












          by Gene & Gary



        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.