Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ijordison t1_j5i0cky wrote

Reply to comment by KidKilobyte in Stereoscopic GIF of a NASA simulation of two binary black holes orbiting by EmergeHolographic

I edited out the centre. I don't think it helps.

https://imgur.com/98QdrY2

13

top_of_the_scrote t1_j5ihzxz wrote

I can make it three but doesn't look 3d

8

dgtlfnk t1_j5lac15 wrote

Make it 5 panels (harder cross-eye). The middle one then becomes really clear and appears 3D.

1

EmergeHolographic OP t1_j5i9k79 wrote

Your two panels here are the same image side by side (whereas the cut out center panel was mirrored). This gives an illusion of depth because of the position that your eyes are relative to the rest of your surroundings, on top of some visual artifacting created from copying or exporting as a gif. For my gif you should only see 4 panels total while crossed, including periphery. It is pretty tricky to see

edit: To clarify I recommend thinking of this GIF as data visualization in a stereoscopic medium, where the depth illusion is created by reflected symmetry, and not the usual parallax stereograph, where two pictures are taken of the same object from slightly different angles. Stereographs usually use parallax, but not always, sorry for the confusion!

−14

Fastfaxr t1_j5ihmj8 wrote

I get the feeling that you know a lot about black holes and very little about how stereoscopic images work.

28

EmergeHolographic OP t1_j5iqgso wrote

??

It may not be stereoscopic parallax, but I do make these to be viewable with stereoscopes so it is stereoscopic by definition, if that's what you mean

−12

5Beans6 t1_j5iuela wrote

I like how you proved them right by trying to explain yourself

24

EmergeHolographic OP t1_j5iw1n7 wrote

It's more that there generally isn't a well fitting word for what I'm doing. "Stereoscopic" is the closest, though; "noting or pertaining to three-dimensional vision or any of various processes and devices for giving the illusion of depth from two-dimensional images or reproductions, as of a photograph or motion picture."

It accurately conveys the medium, viewing method and the intended subject, which is the symmetry. As long as I get those things across

−8

LordFondleJoy t1_j5iwj19 wrote

Except there is no illusion of depth here, thus not stereoscopic by your own referenced definition. It being able to be viewed through a stereoscope doth not stereoscopic make.

21