Talk:Stereogram/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Stereogram. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Editors of this article may have interest and expertise that would be helpful in developing policy relating to use of 3D images here at Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:3D Illustrations and the talk page to participate. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambig for Steriogram (and vice versa on the other page?) I don't know how to do this, but still --90.208.173.167 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction? Possible contradiction on linked page Stereoscopy: "was first invented by Sir Charles Wheatstone in 1838. Stereoscopy is used in photogrammetry and also for entertainment through the production of stereograms." If this is true, how were stereograms (described as photographic) invented in 1932? Or were they invented in non-photographic form in 1932, then made photographic later?

Trying to open the first external link (http://www.3dwonderstuff.com/ Stereograms, Stereographic Animations, Phantograms, and More]), my Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 has shown a malware warning. I found appropriate deleting the above-mentioned link.--Fiertel91 (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose this article be merged with Stereoscopy. I hope the original authors see why this is reasonable.Mydogtrouble (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa... I think I see the sample image reversed -- the peaks look like lowest points, and the lake is on the top. What am I doing wrong? vmaasalo

You are diverging your eyes, i.e. focussing on a point further away than the image. It's intended to be viewed by crossing your eyes, i.e. focussing on a point between your eyes and the image. I see it backwards also, since I can't view cross-eyed stereograms, only divergent ones. I've put some stuff in the article on this. 128.232.250.254 12:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

xD Pictures just need to switch their places. Try it in MS paint. For some reason they are put wrongly.

Images ARE reversed. Try this if using MS Windows.

Hit the PrntScren key on your keyboard. START>All programs>Accessory's>PAINT PASTE Select ether side with square select tool. CUT PASTE to other side.

Now look again. The valleys are low, the mountain peaks are high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.56.29 (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The brain is perceiving depth which really is there, actually represented in the two images. The images were produced from a scene which was in fact three dimensional, and the structure of that scene is being reconstructed. An illusion is perceiving something which really isn't there, or isn't the way it appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.32.179 (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the optical illusion page defines it as "characterized by visually perceived images that differ from objective reality". The objective reality is that two flat images that constitute a stereogram are a recording of 3D data, which can be algorithmically extracted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.32.179 (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone here know anything about the use of stereograms for imaging molecules? Several molecule modeling programs (such as RasMOL) have the ability to generate a 'stereo pair' of renderings, meant for easy stereoscopic viewing (crossed eye type, typically). This use of stereograms as a tool, rather than just a curiosity, is facinating. I'm going to do some research and try to add some of this to the article as I get time, but I wanted to invite anyone else to join me if they would like. Phidauex 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be great! But I don't have experience with these programs. I look forward to seeing your additions. Fred Hsu 00:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bit on space exploration... Its still stubby, but it's something. Next up, chemical modeling. Phidauex 16:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I added this as a type of stereogram. This is not commonly considered as a stereogram type but I think it is a very useful and interesting technique. The name is according to User:Tablizer in Image:Home_plate_anim.gif I encountered an instance for the first time in a file named 3dgoddessrp4.gif in a myspace profile which i don't remember the name. But here I upload it: File:3dgoddessrp4.gif. Not sure about the copyright. --Sohale 18:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, a cross-eye stereogram is in theory just a filmstrip of a wigglegram. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I heard from a optometrist (or some other eye expert I cant remember) that crossing your eyes too look at stereograms is bad for your eyes. Can anyone back this up for me? 58.175.80.19 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is harmful or not, but after I've watched autostereograms, I am unable to focus properly with my sight on close objects for about 5 to 10 minutes. 80.62.36.85 (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that too! Crossing your eyes for too long may result in permanent injuries. Please do not post such instructions to images on Wikipedia - there may be kids around here! Or at least insert some cautionary note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.76.138.135 (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right, 'n I heard if you make grimaces at people, your face will stay that way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.32.179 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 22 August 2009

No, you may look things up for yourself. Regardless you didn't hear this from an "eye expert" such as an optometrist because it isn't true, it is like the idea that after running for five minutes your legs won't be able to stop. Hyacinth (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Do not reverse images when making stero pairs.

Much of the information on this page is completely wrong. The description of crosseyed viewing actually requires a form of walleye diversion that exceeds the parallel limit at infinity. They eye does not want to do this. The descriptions calling for reversal of stereoscopic images for open eye use are wrong.

Crossing the eyes fuses the images, not reverses them. Therefore, they didn't need to be swapped in the first place. People get themselves worked up by the word "cross", needlessly.

The reason stereoscopes exist is not to swap the images, but to allow them to be brought close to the eye, as they can then be much larger and would overlap. Stereoscopes deal with overlap, not swap.

This is the cause of a number of complaints people have in multiple sections below. Patients can even confuse their optometrists, because the optometrists assume the stereo images that their patients saw at home are placed correctly. People with Ph.D.s and major science sites get this wrong nearly all the time when making stereo pairs.

Worse, most of the websites on Teh Internets are wrong, because they copied off of each other. Some even have mixed types of test images, and do not mention this.

Be careful before refuting this: Your eyes use many different types of cues to create fusion, and can partially fuse a number of features, although the overall picture will have at least some problems. Try manually putting the images in the same locations that the eyes would have seen them, like a stereoscope does, and it will work great. Look at the old-time (unswapped) picture on the article page of two women, and it fuses great.

Please get it straight.

Poppafuze (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I second this warning. While certain types of stereograms can be successfully viewed by crossing the eyes, this can create severe eyestrain. The normal way to merge two images to create the illusion of stereoscopic vision is to look straight ahead, relaxing the eyes. If anything, this is a more natural and comfortable way to look at printed images than we usually employ. An example of the errors mentioned above can be seen in the topographic image showing a lake surrounded by mountains. Viewing this stereogram correctly shows the mountains as receding into the ground instead of rising into the air! David spector (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for getting the word out! It's frustrating that this error is so common! 71.203.125.108 (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In ancient times, there were these things known as 35mm slides. At a university, some professors in the earth sciences used two projectors/screens so students could see images in three dimensions. I don't have any reference for this, but it's another use. --71.203.125.108 (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the modern toy, ViewMaster be a version of this? Should there be a bit about it?MysticOrbot (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The example given says "Cross eyes" in the caption and "wall eyes" in the subtext. For me, walleye works, but given the discussion, I think this should be corroborated before this is corrected. 86.154.131.126 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)