Re: A Few Faux Toes in 3D from Last Trip

These turned out pretty darn incredible. I know because the wife said so.


We had a nice time hiking around.
Number of people I saw in 3 days: ZERO (not counting da wifie)
Number of bears driving to and fro: 2
Number of bears in da woodz: 0
Number of Rattlesnakes above 8K: 0
Number of mosquitoes: Not tooooo bad (but I'd prefer to not have to taken a tupid tent!)







They're in here .. since prob. best to see them in full screen:
https://picasaweb.google.com/yosemite.chick.on/HooverLakes

You have to stare at them for a bit and then... pop...
I had one of nice orange sunset of Starr King... but it lost all the color in 3D
And I should have been more diligent atop Buena Vista Crest and taken some up there... o well..

Anyway,
Thanks to Calaveras for starting this...
Enjoy


(and if you don't have 3D glasses... ur a cheap bird) (they're ... what 3 bucks on Amazon) (geez)

---

Well...sure...$3, but I need to buy $22 worth of something else to avoid paying for shipping!

OK, I'll have to order something...in the meantime, any 2D photos?

I'm cursing the current forecast around Tahoe - another weekend where swimming seems unpromising, with snow melted out on beautiful lakes.

If you search you can find free shipping. I paid a TOTAL of 2.86 for mine.

Maybe try this pair

And no I didn't swim in any of the lakes we visited.

I'm behind on photo sets... I'll try to get a few up here.

---

Quote
ttilley
Well...sure...$3, but I need to buy $22 worth of something else to avoid paying for shipping!

OK, I'll have to order something...

This should put you over $22.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2012 07:19AM by eeek.

Cool, and a savings of 95 cents!

I ordered the glasses last night, they're supposed to come early next week.

Cool Nikon.

I think I paid a few bucks for shipping, but even with that its a bargain to be able to see the pics...awesome! Thanks!

GOtta get some glasses, Starr King dosnt look to steep from the saddle from that side

Quote
ryanmj
GOtta get some glasses, Starr King dosnt look to steep from the saddle from that side

Looks can be deceiving. I've come down with my pack the "gully" towards us between
Starr King proper and the middle dome. And I've stood looking up in that saddle going
"I need some help here!". Even the trek up from the right saddle up to the middle dome
is plenty steep. The wife didn't want anything to do with that one when I took her there.

Anyway, some day... I'll get my booty up Starr King proper...

---

Middle dome: Starr Queen
Lower dome: Starr Prince or Princess

Your wanting to go up King means you are Starr Ving.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2012 01:35PM by Ohnivy-Drak.

Thanks for these cool 3D photos!

As I have mentioned in the past, what helps me lock into the 3D effect of the photos is to scroll slowly the photo up and down (or left and right) while I look at the picture. My eyes then quickly lock into the 3D view of the photo in a matter of a few seconds.
.

Another great report. Thx!

2D photos are highly appreciated as I don't dig 3D at all (I got a $$$ 3D projector in my home cinema but have used it only twice in 18 months).

Quote
Half Dome Hiker
Another great report. Thx!

2D photos are highly appreciated as I don't dig 3D at all (I got a $$$ 3D projector in my home cinema but have used it only twice in 18 months).

That's just funny. "These suck. Gimme something else!"

I just spent another 10 minutes staring at these. I think dey are da bomb!

---

As I said: Thanks for the great report. You know I mean it.

I didn't say "Gimme something else.". I just don't get anything out of the 3D thing and believe me when I say that I always have all the latest electronic gimmicks and know how to use them.

Keep posting 3D. Everybody else likes them. So forget about me and my whining.

I bought those glasses you listed above, but they won't get here until next month...

Quote
hikerchick395
I bought those glasses you listed above, but they won't get here until next month...

Patience my darling...

(but don't worry it won't take that long... I think maybe a week and you'll have them)

Now I need to go back and look to see if I have any TM dome stuff that can do in 3D...

---

OK. I put a few more up...

Saw this Spider. It was hanging around my bear can. I think it's a Twinkie Spider.


Wife dubbed this lake "NoOutlet":


Heading up to Buena Vista Crest (note ladie in peekchure):
(she wasn't entirely excited about the class 3-ish manuever at the end to get to the top)


Atop Z Ridge (Two Eastern-Most Hoovers) (the other will remain hidden) (it's too darn nice to show)


I'm Basilproof! (easily picked treat out of trap):


Below Horse Ridge:

(there are many ridges like this in Yosemite) (I know of 5 within Clark Range "area" )
(closest are Horizon and Horse Ridges)

Have fun

---

Thanks for posting the 2d pictures! Is NoOutlet Lake the one between Windy and the three Hoover Lakes?

Quote
ttilley
Thanks for posting the 2d pictures! Is NoOutlet Lake the one between Windy and the three Hoover Lakes?

Yes. Wife dubbed it that. After I said "I wanna go look at the outlet"... then yelled at her to come...
and after the usual me getting yelled at... skipped the outlet and headed over the ridge. On way up she
asked what I wanted to name the lake... said I didn't care so much... Mercur North... asked her what she wanted
to call it and she smartly said "Outlet". She learns too much from me...

Anyway, it was an incredible trip with awesome views for nearly the entire way and loads of granite and ridges
and some incredible lakes. (hint: Windy, NoOutlet, and Western Hoover... worth visiting... big time!)

Have fun

---

I'm happy to be your inspiration. If I may be so bold, I'll offer a few pointers. The 3D effect doesn't work very well on low light or shadowed images. In image #2 on the right the pairs are not aligned vertically and that confuses the ol' brain when it tries to merge the images. I use Photoshop to align the pairs. You can distort or warp the images anyway necessary vertically to get them to line up but you should leave the horizontal spacing alone as that sets the apparent distance of the terrain. Image #3 has what I call the "flat affect." This is where successively distant ridges look like they are cardboard cutouts stood up. This occurs when the separation between the image pairs isn't great enough. This is the limiting factor in trying to include the foreground and the background in these images. The foreground requires little separation but the background requires a lot. When creating 3D terrain images I purposely leave out the foreground. It's not always possible to find two locations with enough separation and that have the same elevation to take the the pairs. When the spacing between the pairs varies a lot between the foreground and the background, your brain has to refocus from the bottom of the image to the top and a lot of people find this difficult to do. It's an unnatural situation and it takes practice.

I hope you make some more as you get to places I have no hope of reaching.

Please. Any words other than "that is complete crap" are greatly appreciated.
I find the cardboard 3D effect pretty cool. I actually really like it.
Other don't so much. That is ok. I hear you about refocusing on the foreground/background.
Again, difference of opinion... but that's fine. I think the foreground with the trees
popping out is amazing. So I find it with the foreground preferrable at times.
I'm using gimp to do all this so I try to align and rotate as needed. I know they are not
perfect. It takes a bit of time to get them decent. I am more than happy to send
you the originals if you want to give any of them a go. I think I have more here and
there... need to look at other trips I've done.
For #2 I had to rotate one of the images... I guess I didn't rotate enough.

I did this one too from Illilouette Ridge... I didn't think it turned out very well... but here it is anyway:


Will def. be trying to remember to take some pairs in future trips.

Thanks

---

I copied this image because it didn't look aligned to me and when I opened it in Photoshop I realized there is a problem. I'm seeing both images in each channel (doubled grayscale images). The green and blue channel should be from one image and the red channel from the other image.

Basically, my procedure is this: I copy one image and paste it onto the other image so it's Layer 1. I change the opacity to 50% so I can see details from both images, perform the alignment and crop as necessary. Then I copy Layer 1, open a new document, paste the aligned image there, then delete Layer 1 from the other image and flatten each image. Now I have two images again. I copy the red channel from one image and paste it in as the red channel on the other image to create the anaglyph. If I chose the wrong red channel, the glasses have to be flipped upside down to see the 3D image and I go back and use the other combination.

I should note that for left eye dominate people creating an image that requires the glasses to be upside down works better for them. I've had complaints from left eye dominates that the normal orientation produces a strongly red colored image. Apparently the dominate eye needs to look through the blue filter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2012 11:21AM by Calaveras.

I don't have Photoshop. I used Gimp.

In a nutshell it's something like this:
4 layers: Cyan, Left Px, Red, Right Px
Cyan and Red set to Transfer Mode Screen
Alight Left and Right
Merge Cyan and Left
Merge Red and Right
Set Cyan and Left to Transfer Mode Multiply
Enjoy

I thought I did those steps for the Ill Ridge one... but
I didn't take the time there as I did on Horizon and Horse
to see I got a decent pair.

Thanks for all your input. I need to digest it and play around more.

---

Here are some detailed instructions on how to make 3D Anaglyphs using GIMP for anyone that's interested:

About.com: How To Create 3D Anaglyphs in GIMP
.

Okay. You don't use Photoshop and I don't use GIMP. I looked up terms in the GIMP Glossary and I see that Channels and Layers and other basic terminology have the same meanings in both programs. But because of terminology differences in the details I don't completely understand the instructions in the link that plawrence provided. So I'll make this very generic and leave it up to the program users to figure out the details.

The basic concept is that you substitute the red channel from one of the image pairs for the red channel in the other image.

The generic steps are:

Open both images.
Copy one image and paste it onto the other image.
Adjust the transparency so that both images can be seen.
Align one image vertically to the other leaving the horizontal spacing alone.
Create a new RGB image by using the red channel from one image and the green/blue channels from the other image.

A higher contrast B&W anaglyph can be made solely from the red channels by placing one of the red channels into the green/blue channels.

I looked at your Olmsted Point image and it has the same problem with doubled images in the RGB channels. My guess is that this is the result of the method used to combine the images. Although I don't know how to do it in GIMP, the solution is to copy and paste the appropriate RGB channels from the layered image into a new blank document to create the anaglyph thus avoiding any sort of layer combining.

You can copy an image from my web page and look at the channels in GIMP and see that there are no doubled channels.

http://panoramas.aa6g.org/Anaglyphs/

Thanks again. I'm not a superuser of gimp so it will take me some time
to figure out how to do what you say in it.

---