-

>>5135
Can also use a 3D image viewer and glasses so you don't have to cross your eyes.

-

>>5135

There are a couple of free programs out there that will convert 2d artwork to 3d artwork using the Red/Blue anistropic filtering. It certainly not perfect, but is is rather amazing to see the results. You DO however need the red/blue glasses (buy em at party barn) to view them.

I think one is actually called "redblue" Just google and find the programs then make your own 3d furry pr0n.

-

>>5135
If you make it using the above programs....SHARE THE PICTURES!

Thanks

-

>>5144

I don't see how that can work at all if it doesn't have a reference for depth.

-

>>5147
the answer is, simply, that you TELL it what parts of the image are at certain depths using a fairly basic built in painting thing. the more detail you're prepared to put in, the better it will look, but really you don't need to give it a great deal for the result to be sufficiently convincing. There are also progs to generate autostereograms (ie "magic eye" type pictures) that work in much the same way but the input image is only used as a background over/into which your 3D information floats.

for viewing on a computer screen i'd much more recommend the red-green/cyan/blue method, trying to view side-by-side images causes massive eye pain and unless they are/your monitor is pretty small (or, portrait aspect pics) you might not even be able to get a satisfactory lock-on. and of course, unless you're very detailed or get lucky with the source image, auto-stereo just isnt an option, even though it gives the benefits of both no glasses required and needing only a relatively small amount of overlap/eye-crossing.
(plus getting a R/C output is pretty damn easy if someone else has provided a dual-image stereogram or that's what your program outputs - drop the pic into your favourite editor, split down the middle, reduce red/boost cyan in one, vice versa in the other, make one a layer to overlay on the other... profit. may need to experiment with how much you tweak the colour, the basic offset amount, and whether you also have to make both pics negative before layering then neg the result back to normal to get it to add/subtract "properly", but that's the general gist.

-

Hang on... so how does this work? How exactly am I supposed to view the image in 3d? It just looks 2d to me... how do I view it?

-

This particular image isn't in 3d. If you read the post, they're requesting images that were. It's 2d.

-

My glasses make this that much more difficult :(

-

>>5212
That actually looks pretty good, only fault I can find is that her feet are both at the same depth (0).

-

>>5212

Pretty nice, how did you manage that?

-

>>5286

I saw this one in the old thread, was looking for more like it. I know how to make these though, you just pan to the right or left a little bit.

How might I go about making something like 5212 though? I have "RedBlue," though I can't seem to find any sort of depth-paint feature.

-

>>5135>>5303

"redblue" uses an algorithm which interprets shading on images to provide depth clues, then automatically generates the "cyan/magenta" offset. When viewed with the red and blue glasses, you will see the 3D result. It works best on images where the artist has shaded the image smoothly, with darker areas receeding from the viewer and lighter areas coming toward the viewer. You can tweek the settings for the numer of levels it will recognize, and the amount of offset between the various layers it auto creates. However you do not have to mask areas yourself. It works pretty good sometimes, however if you have a "flat colored" image with no shading, you may see some odd things.

-

>>5135

Soooo......how bout someone post some of these? I found a pair of those red and blue glasses at the party section of Wal Mart for 1 buck.

-

I'm not sure what's with the whole cross-eyed malarky... I'm struggling to get my eyes to focus. Perhaps I'm being a complete idiot - but some tip/assistance would be appriciated... I rather like the idea of visually 3d pornography.

-

>>5359
I don't suppose anyone has this in .avi format?

-

>>5360

Something against Flash?
http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/

>>5347

Can you cross your eyes? Practice this by holding your finger out at arm length, and slowly bringing it to the tip of your nose while you look at the tip. You'll notice that when you get close, anything behind your finger seems to split into two transparent versions of itself. The trick is to do this while looking at your monitor (you can still use your finger if you want, you don't have to master the art).

Your monitor will split into two transparent monitors, just try to get the two halves of the 3d image to meet in the middle by moving your finger slowly toward and away from your nose (to adjust how much you are crossing your eyes).

Now that there are three images on your odd-looking computer screen, just look at the center one like you would look at anything else. Don't put any effort into getting your eyes to focus, that will happen naturally. Don't give up if it doesn't work the first few times, it takes practice. If you're having trouble crossing your eyes a lot, try starting with the thumbnails on this page, which don't require as much eye-crossing. If you don't merge the two halves of the 3d image correctly by crossing your eyes, your eyes will jump back to the normal position they are used to.

Your eyes will probably also hurt a bit after doing this, that's only because you're moving them a lot and putting them in positions they're not used to. This exercise can't harm you permanently, so don't worry about that.

-

>>5415
No, I actually a stereoscopic 3D setup with glasses and stuff. I can just open video files in a video player and watch them in 3D with the glasses without having to cross my eyes.

-

I think there is a program by zenratai that makes the side by side ones. I think it was free too^^

-

>>5415
this unfortunately is incredibly difficult for anything larger than about 1/3rd of a normal sized screen unless you're very good at crossing your eyes. stuff like magic eye, 3D glasses or actual stereoviewers don't ask for anything like that amount of strain (they're all various methods to induce a goodly amount of overlap) which is why they're used for films and the like, rather than them just projecting two images and saying "cross your eyes".
now if there's a prog out there (i think there is?) which will take seperate stereo images and convert them to anaglyph, that'd be bonzer

-

I really really wish I had some 3-d glasses about now

-

On a related note, YouTube has been developing an experimental 3D player this year. On supported videos, you can toggle through various viewing options, including red/cyan anaglyph, amber/blue, cross-eyed, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFnj89tKsSw

I've contemplated rendering some stereoscopic animations to test it out.

-

I'm guessing the 3-D Glasses from a local movie theater won't work? Does it matter if there the red and blue ones? Or the clear "Real D 3D"?

-

>>5807

It depends on if you are viewing a red/blue anaglyph or a Real3d image. A red/blue is pretty obvious. You can get those glasses at Party Barn. For the other ones, you need a program and glasses from the same vendor.

-

>>5807
the red/blue ones should do. the real3d ones most certainly won't, unless you have some kind of advanced new laptop screen that can put out two differently polarised images... (that sort of thing may be a while coming given that LCDS already work on the basis of altering polarisation to admit different amounts of backlight - it probably needs a custom built OLED and some fancy drivers)

-

I thought this was supposed to be stereoscopic 3D? The last few posts have been Anaglyph 3D

-

>>5974

correct me if i'm wrong but these are just shifted red/green channels and there is no depth

-

>>5984 I bought some red/blue glasses today and it looks pretty good....I mean...it's not AVATAR good, but it does have depth. It certainly brings the image to life a bit, however it appears more monochrome than I would like.

-

>>5972
Actually, Desktop Computers already have this for a while now. With the help of a 120 Hz monitor, and some special glasses, you can view it in the "avatar" style 3d, though the place where you have to sit infront of the monitor is pretty small. It's usually only used for videogames though, heheh. Check it up on nVidia.

-

>>5807

Real3D uses opposite-rotation circular-polarized lenses to view its images; because the two images are polarized in opposite directions, you only see the image for the appropriate eye no matter how much you tilt your head (unlike right-angle-slant linear polarized 3D).

However, I believe there is no mass-consumer technology currently extant for generating circularly-polarized images, so you're not likely to see Real3D imagery for some time yet.

-

Bumping for more parallel stereograms or stereo 3D's.

-

>>5836 Gracias, señor

-

>>6039
oh... thats pretty smart. explains some of the show-thru and also why looking at my pc, phone etc doesnt show the same polarisation-clash effects as my more conventional polaroid shades...

-

>>6039

Your post inspired me to bust the system and make my own REALD3D projector so i took 2 pairs of reald glasses i got from avatar and use the first pair as the projector lenses and the second as the viewing glasses. I discovered that circular polarized lenses filter light INTO a polarized form if that light is traveling into the back, and blocks that same polarization in the opposite direction (light going forward through right lens is only visible when viewed forward through the left, light forward through left visible only be the right). So i put something on my projector and shown it on my wall (cause i do not have a screen for it). I put the glasses on the projector lens so the projector was showing forward through the left lens then put on my glasses. no difference. fail. Yet it worked the same way through a mirror! just mirrors are too shiny (DUH). BUT i remembered something about unspecialized materials losing the polarization upon reflection and something about aluminum coating. I have no chance of getting an aluminum coated screen so..... 3 hours, 1 sheet of aluminum foil, fine steel wool and 1 wooden board later i had a taut wooden backed aluminum foil screen that i sanded so it was about as reflective as... the gray finish on a nintendo wii's vertical stand(for a good reference, google image search it if you would like). IT WORKS. all there is to do now is get 4 small mirrors, the first 2 sitting in front to divide my projection in half (90 degrees left and 90 right) then 2 that put each half 90 degrees toward the screen, each side going through their opposing lenses immediately afterward (before the image grows too large). the resulting combined image will be fine tuned by barely changing the angle of the second set of mirrors.

AND THERE YA HAVE IT REALD 3D TECH MADE RIGHT IN MA GARAGE. IT SHOULDNT BE TO HARD TO MASS PRODUCE THAT. the lcd shutter glasses mentioned earlier no longer require you to sit in one spot, as the new standard in home televisions (starting EARLY 2010) is the HD3DTV, of which multiple manufacturers, starting with Samsung, have scheduled for release. these glasses, which use the same method calculators use in their displays, in the clear glass. they shade and block the entire eye. They are wirelessly synchronized with the tv. the tv shows, instead of having, say, 32 frames per second, it will show 64 frames per second. only now frames 1 AND 2 are the left and right of what used to be frame 1. the synchronized glasses shade your left eye when the tv shows a right frame and vise-versa. the shading moves so fast the glasses appear clear and the picture normal , only in better-than-avatar quality.

i imagine that all broadcasting will be in 3d by 2012 or so.. (the cameras used in filming live action will probably have 2 cameras in them, set at eye width, to avoid the need for conversion)

(SORRY FOR RAMBLING)

-

>>6297
That sounds really cool!
Could you post some photos of the setup? Or link to a place where you have photos of it?

-

>>6297 wow...just....wow.

And I just wanted to fap to 3d cock.

-

>>6339
really would like a source or artist name.
thanks

-

Sorry, but is it too much to ask to post these in side-by-side (cross-eyed) format?
Y'know, like the OP (and myself) would prefer?
Maybe you could start a new thread for the anaglyph format.

-

>>5135>>6562

Short Answer: Yes it is.

Long Answer: It might be able to be done, but the results are often mediocre at best.

These were converted using the program which was talked about earlier; and though it does produce left/right images, those images tend not to be viewable cross-eyed, and only truefully work together as an anaglyph.

Another thread COULD be made, but I believe that might be a little unnecessary. First of all, there doesn't seem to be enough content of any style of 3D to warrent it's own thread, and this thread should be able to fit in most other styles of 3D [not including 3d CG models]. Of course, if more people want another thread, I don't see why one couldn't be made.

-

Can you tell me how far apart the camera's need to be (or what angle) to produce a good stereoscopic effect?

-

>>6566
And if you're blind in one eye...?

-

Can someone who has used the red/blue program mentioned above tell me how it is supposed to work? Is is a magic button you press, and receive full 3D?
How does the program judge distances? I call it BS. I, to convert a picture must draw a monochrome depth map. If you put some effort into it, effects are super-relistic.

I cannot even tell is red/blue sketches above are any good- but If they are created by automated process- they cannot be nearly as good as converted by hand. Also- without texture, your eyes cannot tell distanced between planes. Linework is not enough for full effect.

-

>>6602

Here's a basic explanation:
>>5307

-

>>6620
This is superb, I love it
More like this would be excellent!

-

>>6620

You shouldn't diss the redblue program unless you've got something better.

(Crossing your eyes is not better)

-

Red/Cyan (or red/blue) technology is easier for the consumer, and you can view full screen. However, It cannot reproduce colours too well. So let's say choice between this, and my stereoscopy is up to preference. I could make my conversion dichromatic red/blue, but I have my preference- which is seeing pure image without colour distortion.

Redblue program that you mention however cannot map picture depth. I have measured re/blue shift distances and can clearly see, that those images are flat like paper! 3D you are talking about is a cheap illusion of whole picture rising from screen. There is no depth variation.

Make an effort, and look at mine, until you get a sharp image. Look at thigh/hand/penis fragment and see that each is at different depth. Thighs are convex, so is tail, but because there is little texture, it may be hard to notice. I even made paw pads convex, which could be seen, given good enough magnification.

-

>>6620 I really like this. I must say, its size is great, as is the quality. The tail is a little blurry, but that's fine.

-

>>5135>>6655 Wow, you did a really nice job on that depth map. Well done!

-

>>6652

http://www.stereoeye.jp/software/index_e.html

What do you think about this program? From what I can see it takes the left & right images like the nice ones you made and makes them into something viewable with anaglyph glasses.

-

Hmmm... don't know. I guess you feed it one 2D image, which it then "converts". I already discussed the difference. There is no substitute for manual process.

BTW the 3D renders from top of thread give impressive effect, but I've yet to find one fappable full 3D rendering. Really great artists draw 2D, and there is nothing that can be done.

I am thinking of one more method- involving lots more work, but effect could be staggering. Using depth map similar to the one I drawn, using it to create 3D surface in 3D program and lay 2D image on it, as a texture. I wonder what effect would it have on end result?

-

dude! this thing is smaller than a post stamp! How am I supposed to view it proper?

-

>>6681

That's what she said.

-

Maybe I'm just being picky, but could we get some non-gay pics? Maybe?

-

>>6696

I messed up on the jail bars (aliasing, grrr) but I only spent 15 min on this so I didn't feel like fixing them :P

-

>>6686 Seriously. Bump for /f/ or /s/

-

Well, if you used the pdf, I can't see how it could go wrong. But could you compose cros-eye pic? For all of us that don't have glasses? It will take you a minute. Just remember to put left image on the right side. :)

-

>Maybe I'm just being picky, but could we get some non-gay pics? Maybe?

I am working on it! But now I am working on something of outstanding quality and it will take a while (It will be /f/)
I am glad people are picking this conversion idea up. Maybe we will see more of them soon.

-

how can you actuly get those red/blue glasses, or is there an easy way to make a pair?

-

Yeah, I've seen people making them from cardboard and candy cellophane.
the big problem is, that there are tens of tone variations, mostly in blue/cyan lens. Unless you are getting glasses from the same source as pictures/movies it is likely that colours will not match and you will experience colour bleeding through lenses, creating "ghost" images. This is why I hate using red/cyan, apart from guaranteed loss in fidelity and colour.

Back to your question- google around. Some societies or companies will sent you a free pair if you finish an online questionnaire. Otherwise, they cost pennies on ebay.

-

http://www.3dglassesonline.com/how-do-3d-glasses-work/ and other sites offer them for free if you send in an SASE.

I got my 3d glasses in a copy of Final Destination 3D. This was after not finding them at Kmart, Walmart, the 3 local party stores, and all the dollar stores - but before I knew I could get them for the cost of a post stamp and envelope.

-

>I hope I did that right, I can't see it but I put the left on the right and the right on the left.

You did it right! Otherwise I wouldn't be able to focus. You did really well, considering how much detail there was. Kickass! Added to collection.
Is you want to get rid of some loose pixels around characters, chains ets. You would have to place them of separate layers, and them fill out empty space beneath them (not all of it, just sort of draw hole's edges inside).
I think you did use layers, but did the same mistake as me the first time- make displacement map too small to cover some loose pixels on edges. If you have character of separate layer- instead of drawing in original selection you used, expand it by 2-3 pixels (select>modify>expand), and then draw the map.

-

If you will be trying to fix the glitches, I can explain to you the trick I used to correct depth map.

Vary basically (maybe you know Photoshop, I dunno) you select the depth map, contract selection by about 2 pixels, inverse it and then use liquify filter to draw the pixels of the map out, covering image pixels that were loose.

-

>>6650 Crossing the eyes is better!
Because:

• Original Color
• No "tools" needed

>>6620
Quote:"Oh, right... Uses brightness of pixels to determine distance. Really clever. NOT."

You are right, these programms are dump, they just do some math(what does not work in many cases).
And the people using these programms are pitiful, if they think these programms kreate great 3d-Images. I mean take your 3d-glases and look at theese they are either flat as paper(but raised from screen) or just wrong.

Sorry if I offended someone, but thats what I think.

>>6620
>>6723
Go on, you are great, will try that on my own, and share results if viewable.

-

>>6726

It is better, unfortunately I can't (and have never been able to) cross my eyes while still being able to focus correctly - so I can't see the fancy 3D effect. Partially for this reason 3D movies are (or were anyway) in anaglyph format - it is more consumer friendly. I'm getting an iZ3D monitor though, which does let me load stereoscopic jpegs and view them with the fancy polarized 3d glasses without the color loss. It's painfully easy to do both stereoscopic and anaglyph once the displace map is made on these images, so for now I do both.

-

>>6726

None of the redblue program's outputted images look 3d to me at all. That program fails, hard. Simple math can't magically make a 2d piece of art come to life.

The "Anaglyph maker" program is good if you want to take an already made stereoscopic pair of left-right images and make them into a color anaglyph, grayscale anaglyph, or other 3d format - it doesn't promise to make images magically 3d though if anyone in this thread got their hopes up - and making a grayscale anaglyph in photoshop from a stereo pair is easy enough as to not need this program.

-

Best image in the thread is:
>>6696

Some of the automatically generated anaglyphs work, kind of, but most don't. You just can't beat real human artistry. I'd like to see more of that.

The stereoscopic ones aren't bad, but eye strain sucks, and they don't have as much "pop" as the red and blue. I don't mind sacrificing color for a nice 3d effect.

-

>Best image in the thread is:

>>6696

I concur. There were many details that were taken care of and many objects on various depths.

Getting entirely rid of artefacts on edges if very time consuming. You need a separate layer for each depth-jump, I am trying it now.

>I can't (and have never been able to) cross my eyes while still being able to focus correctly

I would say, you should keep trying. If you can focus on something close to your face, you can cross your eyes. It is just about exercising control. Try some guide on net. Focusing on a pencil held close to face helps initially.

-

>>6729 > ...unfortunately I can't (and have never been able to) cross my eyes while still being able to focus correctly

This May help:
-Open the Image
-Look at your nose (the image(s) should overlap more than needed now)
-now try to match them
-if they are matched, they are easy to hold (for me)
-while not focused move realy close to the screen and far away, repeat two or three times and your eyes will get a "feeling" for the distance

-

>>6853
As for me it is more easy to look at something beyond monitor, like wall on opposite side of a room or something.

-

But that would only work for parallelogram- in crosseye images are in reverse order.
But I dunno, whatever works for you.
BTW, I had to put away 3D'ing Kineta for now. Maybe next week.

-

MOAR cross-eyed 3D!

-

>>7347
3D is kind of all over the place, hard to see real depth. Using 3D glasses btw.

-

>>7356 Why are you using 3D glasses? This is for the eye-crossing technique. I hand-drew the depth map, so it shouldn't be too bad.

-

>>7358
It's a lot easier than just crossing my eyes and looks better with no headaches.

-

>>7367 I don't understand how this works.

-

I once got pretty good results on normal 2D pics just by running them through Photoshop; I made a macro that slightly changed the perspective (just shortening on one side) and then implemented a filter macro that turned both into anaglyph images. Worked quite well...

-

>>7363

Thanks for contribution, but you have displaced the images waaay too far. I am... expert at viewing cross-eyed, and even I cannot focus properly on your pictures! The displacement is too great, you should tone it down. It can also be a case of too steep gradients in your depth map.

>>7364

Oh, so you confessed to messing up first depth map! The kangaroo pic looks awesome! You got it right.

You motivated me to finish my piece. Should be done this week...

-

>It's a lot easier than just crossing my eyes and looks better with no headaches.

It MAY be easier, but will never look better. You will never have full colour, you will never get perfect isolation of L/R pictures, you will never get perfect ghost-free picture, unless you make it to fit specific set of glasses- which not everyone has access to!!

Cross-eye is democratic and anyone willing to learn can view them in perfect colour and resolution.

-

>>8110 Not even "remotely"! Thats a pictue of a male and a herm character form. FAIL

-

Hey I'll take on a request if anyone wants. I'm more likely to get right on it if it's something I like, like transformation.

-

>>8153

>like transformation

I'm down.

-

>>8178

seconded.

-

Well feel free to post a request image.

-

If you're taking requests, 6339 up higher in the thread. :)

-

I'm surprised that I'm the first to say this outright- the cross-eyed technique doesn't work for everyone, and isn't good for your eyes anyway.

-

>>8504

It works for everyone because it's no different from normal depth perception. You do have to master it, yes, but it's worth it IMO. Also, it doesn't hurt your eyes at all. They can get a little sore, but they'll be fine.

-

>>8516
He's trying to say parallel viewing requires skill while analglyph viewing doesn't.

>>8504
While that is true, I personally haven't gotten Analglyph viewing to work properly, and my glasses are always so far away.

I think we can all agree that polarized light is the best way to approach this, but polarized projectors are expensive.

-

Not this shit again! The automatic conversion to red/blue cannot cut it! Unless you put some work into it, and manually create depth map, the only effect you can get is really, really cheap pop-up effect.

Stop making them. The annoyance of having to dig up your 3D glasses (if you have them) is not worth the effect.
PS. That made me motivation to finish my pic. Keep your thumbs up.

-

>>8806
Good job, but you got the parallax effect the wrong way around. In the first picture, you have to spread your eyes instead of crossing them to see it properly, but in the second picture, you have to cross your eyes to see the background sink in.

Swap the pictures from left to right and redo the backgroung, and it should work fine.