Radiolarian

[Saul]

Sony a6300 , 154 photos, Nikon 50x 0.55 ∞/Reichert TL, Nikon Microphot , Hoffman type condenser insert/filter set, DIATOM LAB di Stefano Barone slide, PS/Picolay/StereoPhotoMaker



Bigger:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/498 ... 5cff_o.jpg

[daruosha]

It's really beautiful. Amazing shot.

Hoffman type condenser insert/filter set

Would you explain it a bit more?

[75RR]

Nicely done!

[Saul]

It's really beautiful. Amazing shot.

Hoffman type condenser insert/filter set

Would you explain it a bit more?

Thanks !
Not sure, are you familiar with this conversion insert.
" a la Hoffman" extras were used with this set. Instead mirrored surfaces I used pol filters, what gave me ability to adjust their darkness with one more pol filter on the illuminator.
This is just general idea, I used other things together with this setup (will write separate post, results of this setup were very interesting).

[MichaelG.]

" a la Hoffman" extras were used with this set. Instead mirrored surfaces I used pol filters, what gave me ability to adjust their darkness with one more pol filter on the illuminator.
This is just general idea, I used other things together with this setup (will write separate post, results of this setup were very interesting).

That would be most welcome, Saul
... the lovely result speaks for itself !!

Thanks
MichaelG.

[Saul]

Stereo version, done with Zerene, DMap .
Now with the uniform background .



Bigger:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/498 ... 5610_o.jpg

[MichaelG.]

Stereo version, done with Zerene, DMap .

Looks very promising, but I must find a quick way of switching these image pairs L-R
... viewed parallel, it looks like a cavity [and I can’t do cross-eyed viewing]

MichaelG.

[Saul]

Stereo version, done with Zerene, DMap .

Looks very promising, but I must find a quick way of switching these image pairs L-R
... viewed parallel, it looks like a cavity [and I can’t do cross-eyed viewing]

MichaelG.

[MichaelG.]

Thank you, kind Sir ... That does it very nicely

MichaelG.

[Saul]

Thank you, kind Sir ... That does it very nicely

MichaelG.

Thanks Michael !
What is strange, I know one person who can see stereo of this reversed stereogram, without stereo glasses or cross-eyeing !
How it is possible ? Brain perception ?

[MichaelG.]

Thank you, kind Sir ... That does it very nicely

MichaelG.

Thanks Michael !
What is strange, I know one person who can see stereo of this reversed stereogram, without stereo glasses or cross-eyeing !
How it is possible ? Brain perception ?

You know at least two now, Saul !!
... It’s too early in the morning just now [just after 07:00 in the UK, and I need Coffee], but I will find some explanatory notes for you later today.

MichaelG.

[MichaelG.]

I’m back ...

I think it’s fair to say that the the cross-eyed vs parallel viewing preference is more to do with physiology than with perception.
At the eye/brain level, both types of observer are basically seeing the same thing
The Left eye sees the Left camera image, and the Right eye sees the Right camera image

Physiology dictates our personal preference for viewing method, and that preference dictates how we need the images to be arranged.

Personally, I find it easy to set my ‘gaze’ at infinity [thus, parallel], and adjust [*] my focus to close-up
Others find it easier to first stare at a close view [thus, converging], and then exaggerate that to ‘cross-eyed’
Therefore, I need L=L and R=R and they need L=R and R=L image layouts.

Free-viewing, in either mode, results in a trio of images ... The central one of which is in stereo
The ‘wrong’ layout [whichever that might be for an individual results in a concave stereo image when convex was intended.

Hope that makes sense !

MichaelG.
.

[*] This has become more difficult since I had my Cataract operations, because my eyes now have no natural focus adjustment, but the underlying preference remains.

P.S. ___ This book, published in 1935, remains a wealth of information:
https://archive.org/details/stereoscopi ... 9/mode/2up

[mrsonchus]

Hmm, I too have no problem seeing the stereo merged image. I just look at the line between the two images and as soon as any sort of 'unconscious' focus starts to occur I consciously focus on a part of the image that's appearing. When I get focus two peripheral images come-into view (one either side of the stereo central image) but not fully focused.
So I see a row of three images, L & R peripheral and unfocused + a central stereo focused image proper.

Interesting too that the top pair merge to appear concave whereas the bottom (reversed) pair don't exactly appear convex (as intuition may suggest?), but certainly not concave....

[MichaelG.]

So ... Which one of the two offerings works for you, John

Or are you able to view both versions ?

MichaelG.

[mrsonchus]

I see them both Michael, the top pair appear concave and the bottom pair not quite convex, more 'just 3D' as it were...

Urk! Just tried a weird thing.... Scrolling the (bottom pair of) images off of the bottom of my screen while seeing the 3D merged image didn't 'break lock' as I expected it may. When I scrolled the images back up onto my screen the 3D image and it's peripheral pals were still seen, the stereo 3D still in focus.
Then I tried scrolling from the bottom 3D image while similarly focused, up to the top pair and surprisingly, and slightly mine-bendingly, the top 3D (concave appearance) image was also in focus, as though the two 3D 'merged' images were in fact really on the screen - scrolling on and off, or from one to the other didn't cause loss of focus - surprised me for sure!

Very intriguing these stereo-pairs!

[MichaelG.]

Thanks, John

If you see the top image concave, you are, like me, a ‘parallel viewer’

Curiously, ‘cross-eyed’ free-viewing has become more common in recent years, although ‘parallel’ is of course the arrangement used in optical stereoscopes.

Fascinating isn’t it

MichaelG.