Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2013
     
    The ability is closely correlated with intelligence.
    • CommentAuthorLakes
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2013
     
    Ha!
    •  
      CommentAuthorEndeavour
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2013
     
    The less you see the more intelligent you are.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2013
     
    That of course would be anticorrelated, not correlated.
  1.  
    Yep. When you done bin lated by Auntie Cora, you know you bin lated.
    •  
      CommentAuthorlegendre
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2013
     
    Posted By: LakesI never could see the "image" in those damn autostereo pics, just got a headache.


    It's a sailboat.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2013
     
    No it's not.


  2.  
    Dolly Parton.
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2013
     
    a plane?
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2013
     
    A bird flying over some mountains?
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2013
     
    Posted By: aber0dera plane?
    Yep.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2013 edited
     
    Actually an Air New Zealand 777 with 103 passengers (you can see them through the windows) passing over the Andes near Arequipa, Peru. I think it must be on a Tuesday but it's difficult to be precise.
  3.  
    Some thing like that. I get the background hills and troughs all right but I can't quite make out the shimmering x-like thing in the "foreground".

    I also don't agree with the common explanation of how these "autostereograms" work. I believe that you really do need to do a "register shift" if only by one repetition step in order to get the binocular cues for depth. Do people manage to resolve the depth illusion in these things with only one eye open?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinI also don't agree with the common explanation of how these "autostereograms" work. I believe that you really do need to do a "register shift" if only by one repetition step in order to get the binocular cues for depth. Do people manage to resolve the depth illusion in these things with only one eye open?


    Of course you have to be looking at different parts of the image with each eye. What is this "common explanation" you speak of? I don't think I have heard it.

    No - there is no way you can see them with one eye unless they are badly done and the pattern shifts become visible as a change in image statistics.

    I hope you are not crossing your eyes. This one is designed to be seen with the eyes very slightly diverged, so look through it instead of crossing.

    Here's an easier one. When your eyes are pointed in the right direction you will see three red squares joined by two blue chevrons at the top. (The left red square and the right one will be binocularly combined)

    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2013 edited
     
    I don't need the "helpers" myself, thanks, and whether you cross or diverge makes the 3-d image appear in front of or behind the background texture. Obviously "behind" is more difficult to scan and looks weird, shimmery transparent like.



    Ah, I had a rotating animated GIF version of that but I can't seem to post it.
  4.  
    The "conventional" explanation for the autostereograms, I thought, maintained that the depth information was monocular, since there is only the one image in front of you. But the fact that you need to "fix" on a plane in front or in back of the real image plane means that the two eyes get similar, but different monocular images that the system can "merge" erroneously. I first noticed this kind of thing when I was a small child, looking at repetitive patterns like the dots in ceiling tile, or the tiny holes in a car interior headliner. The "error" of focal plane makes the dot pattern stand out, independently from the actual surface, and apparently hovering in mid air.
    •  
      CommentAuthorlegendre
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: Duracell
    Posted By: aber0dera plane?
    Yep.


    Over very hilly terrain. It's a deep image, a little difficult, but it's there and extremely sharp.

    One of the best I've seen, really.. particularly on a laptop screen.
    •  
      CommentAuthorlegendre
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2013 edited
     
    Angus' last one, the one with the 'autumn' tones, is another good one.

    Really deep, regular "bumpy" background, with a floating 3-lobed geometric construct floating in the foreground. Sort of a tri-lobed Mobius strip..? I don't know the correct name for that form.
  5.  
    Posted By: legendreI don't know the correct name for that form.

    It's a knot, a trefoil knot.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2013
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinThe "conventional" explanation for the autostereograms, I thought, maintained that the depth information was monocular, since there is only the one image in front of you. But the fact that you need to "fix" on a plane in front or in back of the real image plane means that the two eyes get similar, but different monocular images that the system can "merge" erroneously. I first noticed this kind of thing when I was a small child, looking at repetitive patterns like the dots in ceiling tile, or the tiny holes in a car interior headliner. The "error" of focal plane makes the dot pattern stand out, independently from the actual surface, and apparently hovering in mid air.




    Your explanation is correct, of course, and your experience is the same as mine ( in my case I noticed as a small child that you could make the bathroom floor appear to be at the level of your knees by binocularly combining different hexagonal tiles in the pattern).

    Tyler's algorithm for generating these things just uses slight variations in a periodic pattern to generate the different depth planes.


    If somebody knows how to encode the percept of stereopsis in a monocular still image I think he can get rich.