<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 3D anaglyph animation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/</link>
	<description>I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:20:41 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: will</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/comment-page-2/#comment-95802</link>
		<dc:creator>will</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:20:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/#comment-95802</guid>
		<description>chek out www.pixelperfect3d.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>chek out <a href="http://www.pixelperfect3d.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.pixelperfect3d.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: StarFire 3D Animation</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/comment-page-2/#comment-33598</link>
		<dc:creator>StarFire 3D Animation</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 17:10:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/#comment-33598</guid>
		<description>Wow thatâ€™s amazing. Itâ€™s adding the 4th dimension of time to 3D image on the anaglyph plane. Far out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow thatâ€™s amazing. Itâ€™s adding the 4th dimension of time to 3D image on the anaglyph plane. Far out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MichaelS</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/comment-page-2/#comment-33579</link>
		<dc:creator>MichaelS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/#comment-33579</guid>
		<description>Unlike paired image viewing, when I look at these stereo pictures inverted, I get weird shapes.  In this case, I see two objects instead of the intended one: assuming the flat background is 100 units away, there&#039;s a body-shaped blob at about 50 units, and a 5-finned fish at about 75 units.

I personally like these images better than paired viewing simply because they don&#039;t hurt my eyes as badly.  I don&#039;t know anything about how these are made, but I suspect there are &quot;stripes&quot; of left/right information, instead of having the entire left image on one side and the right image on the other side.  If so, these images allow the eyes to view images in a mostly relaxed state, while paired viewing requires the eye muscles to hold the eyes much farther from relaxed*.  Also, you can view much larger images this way than with paired viewing, and change the focus within the window.  * Proper paired viewing with lenses mounted to my head is actually better, but just displaying two images side-by-side on screen is hard on my eyes.

I cannot view 3D data with only one eye--I can&#039;t even see a 2D outline or anything.  I tried looking with both eyes then maintaining while covering one eye and it still didn&#039;t work.  Also, I think some of the problem with seeing the image may be due to focusing abilities; normally, your eye lenses focus to a certain distance while your eye balls simultaneously aim so the views intersect at that distance.  Since these images require your lenses to focus at one distance (that of your monitor) while your eyes aim to intersect farther or closer, strongly coordinated eyes will have a harder time seeing the image, while &quot;weaker&quot; coordination can be manipulated easily.

I grabbed the frames, and it&#039;s harder for me to see an individual frame than the motion image, though I can reduce the image resolution further on the frame and still see 3D than I can with the motion image.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unlike paired image viewing, when I look at these stereo pictures inverted, I get weird shapes.  In this case, I see two objects instead of the intended one: assuming the flat background is 100 units away, there&#8217;s a body-shaped blob at about 50 units, and a 5-finned fish at about 75 units.</p>
<p>I personally like these images better than paired viewing simply because they don&#8217;t hurt my eyes as badly.  I don&#8217;t know anything about how these are made, but I suspect there are &#8220;stripes&#8221; of left/right information, instead of having the entire left image on one side and the right image on the other side.  If so, these images allow the eyes to view images in a mostly relaxed state, while paired viewing requires the eye muscles to hold the eyes much farther from relaxed*.  Also, you can view much larger images this way than with paired viewing, and change the focus within the window.  * Proper paired viewing with lenses mounted to my head is actually better, but just displaying two images side-by-side on screen is hard on my eyes.</p>
<p>I cannot view 3D data with only one eye&#8211;I can&#8217;t even see a 2D outline or anything.  I tried looking with both eyes then maintaining while covering one eye and it still didn&#8217;t work.  Also, I think some of the problem with seeing the image may be due to focusing abilities; normally, your eye lenses focus to a certain distance while your eye balls simultaneously aim so the views intersect at that distance.  Since these images require your lenses to focus at one distance (that of your monitor) while your eyes aim to intersect farther or closer, strongly coordinated eyes will have a harder time seeing the image, while &#8220;weaker&#8221; coordination can be manipulated easily.</p>
<p>I grabbed the frames, and it&#8217;s harder for me to see an individual frame than the motion image, though I can reduce the image resolution further on the frame and still see 3D than I can with the motion image.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LarrySDonald</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/comment-page-2/#comment-33578</link>
		<dc:creator>LarrySDonald</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:50:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/#comment-33578</guid>
		<description>The &quot;hole instead of bulge&quot; thing occurs when you watch it cross eyed rather then parallel eyed. They are designed so that, besides the edges, another &quot;input&quot; from reality that would also be consistent with it is a 3d object. Most are designed so that looking far behind (the directions of each eye more parallel to each other then what would be reasonable looking at it as a flat object as it in reality is) would be consistent with the object intended beyond focus. Luckily, with not-too-deep objects and a bit of practice the brain can be made to accept that while the focus doesn&#039;t quite match the eye angle - yay brain! However this also incidentally matches an &quot;inverted along the z axis&quot; object with the eyes crossed, the left seeing what is intended for the right and vice versa. It&#039;s possible to design them to match this and some people find them much easier to view (then presenting the inverse shark hole to us others who prefer parallel).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The &#8220;hole instead of bulge&#8221; thing occurs when you watch it cross eyed rather then parallel eyed. They are designed so that, besides the edges, another &#8220;input&#8221; from reality that would also be consistent with it is a 3d object. Most are designed so that looking far behind (the directions of each eye more parallel to each other then what would be reasonable looking at it as a flat object as it in reality is) would be consistent with the object intended beyond focus. Luckily, with not-too-deep objects and a bit of practice the brain can be made to accept that while the focus doesn&#8217;t quite match the eye angle &#8211; yay brain! However this also incidentally matches an &#8220;inverted along the z axis&#8221; object with the eyes crossed, the left seeing what is intended for the right and vice versa. It&#8217;s possible to design them to match this and some people find them much easier to view (then presenting the inverse shark hole to us others who prefer parallel).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rpdelgado</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/comment-page-2/#comment-33577</link>
		<dc:creator>rpdelgado</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:17:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/#comment-33577</guid>
		<description>My head hurts !!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My head hurts !!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Melusine</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/comment-page-2/#comment-33576</link>
		<dc:creator>Melusine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/#comment-33576</guid>
		<description>That was cool - I&#039;ve never seen an animated one. Ain&#039;t the Internet great? (Ditto on the &quot;not an anaglyph&quot; though.) But great link!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That was cool &#8211; I&#8217;ve never seen an animated one. Ain&#8217;t the Internet great? (Ditto on the &#8220;not an anaglyph&#8221; though.) But great link!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Inoculated Mind : Animated MagicEye!</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/comment-page-2/#comment-33597</link>
		<dc:creator>The Inoculated Mind : Animated MagicEye!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:50:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/27/3d-anaglyph-animation/#comment-33597</guid>
		<description>[...] (via Bad Astronomy) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] (via Bad Astronomy) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
