Alizee in 3D (optical illusion, may upset your stomach)

[HibyPrime]

Heres a technique I learned to see any image in 3d (though it has to be duplicated).

If you know how to cross your eyes skip the next paragraph.

Put your finger about 1 foot infront of your eyes and focus on it, slowly move your finger toward your face until you can no longer focus on it anymore. You just learned how to cross your eyes, practice that some more - practice until you can do it without your finger.

Cross your eyes until the two images converge (or focus into the distance, though I think that is harder) and with a little practice you will be seeing this beauty in 3D

Dont worry if it takes awhile to figure it out, it took me almost 20 minutes..

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4625/untitled1rd2.jpg

[Spartan500]

lol u got this of alizee forum and it took me my first try but then again my eyes are screwed up lol

[HibyPrime]

lol u got this of alizee forum and it took me my first try but then again my eyes are screwed up lol

I actually got it from here: http://www.gizmology.net/stereography.htm

Oh, and the 20 mins is a lie, I just say that to get people to put some time into it before they give up. I do lots of tricks with my eyes, crossing my eyes is almost natual to me.

[Spartan500]

o i seen it here thanks to rmj http://www.alizee-forum.com/topic,12366,-sleeping-beauty-in-3d--.html

[RMJ]

Yup, we got long thread there.

And it doesn't work with this image.

The images needs to be different. That's how the stereo image formed. If you look at some object and blind your eyes after each other you'll see that your eyes sees different image. The same thing is used in stereo images to fool your brain.

Basically, to form perfect stereo image, you need two cameras which takes photos (or video) at the same time. And the camera are in little distance from each other but has the same focal point.

In Lili's case this isn't unfortunately possible, since there isn't such photos. But you can fake it little bit by taking two photos or video frames thare are close to each other in time frame but has camera movement during it.



If you look this image closer, you will notice that it doesn't have any 3d effect. It might fool you at the first but once your eyes gets used to the technique, you'll see it doesn't work. There is no kind data of third dimension in this picture, so it won't work. There's no depth.

[bt_bird_90]

Just get Alizée tattoo'd the the inside of your eyelids, like normal people

[bt_bird_90]

would it work better as a .gif by any chance?
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/6889/roses3dfx8.gif
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/6963/3dwatercl6.gif

[HibyPrime]

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/6963/3dwatercl6.gif

That's one massively complex photomanip...

[Spartan500]

hey bt thats cool it kinda works now make some of alizee

[bt_bird_90]

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/996/howdoishotgifjxn1.jpg

[Cooney]

I like it, Hiby. Makes her pop right out to me.

For folks who wear glasses... take them off! That's very important for trying to get these "Magic Eye" type things the first couple times.

[aFrenchie]

Those images below are NOT animated gifs! They're only png and jpg. Ask your eyes what's going on! :D
Image1 (http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/9496/illusionoptiquerollerscn1.png)
Image2 (http://img306.imageshack.us/img306/1448/illusionoptiquebrownmomi5.png)
Image3 (http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/2272/550x550cz5.jpg)

[O Rly]

Optical illusions? yay!
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/8790/checkershadowtp4.th.jpg (http://img165.imageshack.us/my.php?image=checkershadowtp4.jpg) http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/4848/animswirlez2.th.gif (http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?image=animswirlez2.gif)
I found more cool illusions at http://www.skytopia.com/project/illusion/illusion.html

[jeroh]

i can't do that.. cuz i can't stop to watch the alizee pic

[atra201]

just get a program that would create 3D images

[RMJ]

just get a program that would create 3D images

Show me program that can create 3 dimensional images...


Stereo images are the closest you get...

[atra201]

Show me program that can create 3 dimensional images...


Stereo images are the closest you get...

what :blink: there are non? :confused: :confused: :confused:
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o

[Ben]

would it work better as a .gif by any chance?
Good idea!

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/6310/stereo1tm8.gif

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/7777/stereo2ez9.gif

[RMJ]

what :blink: there are non? :confused: :confused: :confused:
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Of course there is none. Not at least us to purchase.

How would you show 3D image on 2D monitor ? You can't...

Beside, the whole word "image" loses it's meaning when adding 3rd dimension to it. Image is 2D, model is 3D.

[C-4]

I love Alizée in 1, 2, and 3-D! She's all great all the time!

[spysmasher]

I love Alizée in 1, 2, and 3-D! She's all great all the time!

Alizée in 1-D: .

Yeah, she's great in any dimension, but I think I prefer 2- or 3-D. :D

... and "all the time" -- that would be 4-D, wouldn't it?

[RMJ]

Alizée in 1-D: .

Dot (point) is dimensionless. :)

Closest to 1D object on computer screen would be line, for example: |

Even tho, both . and | are 2 dimensional on computer screen. True 1D exists only in math, never in nature.

Even tho 1D not exist in nature, 0D does. Atleat in theory. Tho, we will never see it so it remains as a theory... Tho, it existence can be calculated once we have more info about it.

[spysmasher]

Dot (point) is dimensionless. :)

Closest to 1D object on computer screen would be line, for example: |

Even tho, both . and | are 2 dimensional on computer screen. True 1D exists only in math, never in nature.

Even tho 1D not exist in nature, 0D does. Atleat in theory. Tho, we will never see it so it remains as a theory... Tho, it existence can be calculated once we have more info about it.

Oops! You're right. I stand corrected. :o

Been a long time since I took geometry.

[aditya8617]

3D isn't that great. the image is not that clear. On the top of that my eyes are paining now. I shouldn't have strained them so much.

[aFrenchie]

I'd like to see an Alizée 3D model in a FPS! :eek:

[Spartan500]

I can do this forever even with my glasses but i wouldn't want to look funny being crosseyed lol

[RMJ]

3D isn't that great. the image is not that clear. On the top of that my eyes are paining now. I shouldn't have strained them so much.

Of course it isn't great, but it's best that can be done with the material we have.

For really good stereo images you'd need to have right setup in studio. But I doubt it's very easy option for us right now. :) Tho... if you wanna try, call Alizée and tell her that I'm available for (3D) photo shoot any day. .)

[bt_bird_90]

I'd like to see an Alizée 3D model in a FPS! :eek:

My games will be stuffed full of Alizée references and easter eggs, no worries ;)

[HibyPrime]

... and "all the time" -- that would be 4-D, wouldn't it?

Nice. Subtle science jokes are always nice.

[Spartan500]

I kind of already knew that hiby lol jk and what games BT

[HibyPrime]

Dot (point) is dimensionless. :)

Closest to 1D object on computer screen would be line, for example: |

Even tho, both . and | are 2 dimensional on computer screen. True 1D exists only in math, never in nature.

Even tho 1D not exist in nature, 0D does. Atleat in theory. Tho, we will never see it so it remains as a theory... Tho, it existence can be calculated once we have more info about it.

I believe the newest (and widely growing) theory on dimensions is that there are an infinite amount of them and you can not define an object without any one of them. ie. 2D is impossible in our universe, as is 3D - no time (according to Einstein anyway).

Edit: I got that way off, I was thinking about the string theory, it says that there are 11 dimensions, and they apply to all objects in our universe.

A 5th dimension could be energy, as an example. I'm dumbfounded for a 6th, but I'm sure there is one.

How can there be a 0 dimension? You are literally describing an object that does exist on some level by saying it does not exist. That's a mind boggler..

[HibyPrime]

Ok, so I setup two videos (two of the same ACC), and tried it with that 3d method. If you set them up only very, very slightly apart, it actually works!

It's a pain in the ass to get them setup right though.. (hint: use the sound to get them to match, not the video)

This makes me want to make a two-tv system and set them up so one displays the video a fraction of a second from the other.

[maareek]

Good idea!

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/6310/stereo1tm8.gif

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/7777/stereo2ez9.gif

EARTHQUAKE!

[Senshi87]

if i want to see 3d of her..isnt it just to open up a video and voila! 3d of her!? :D

[Ben]

if i want to see 3d of her..isnt it just to open up a video and voila! 3d of her!? :D
No, videos are 2D. They have no depth as they're flat on your screen. And technically so are all of the images in this thread. But they give the illusion of depth.

[HibyPrime]

No, videos are 2D. They have no depth as they're flat on your screen. And technically so are all of the images in this thread. But they give the illusion of depth.

By that definition, it is impossible to see anything in 3d. Your eyes recieve all images in a 2d plane, just as your monitor transmits them.

The images that are properly made as "stereo," are exactly what you would see in real life - two images from a slightly different postion merged into one.

[RMJ]

Excatly. The stereo view is natural way to see the world. That's why these stereo images works too as supposed. Brains does the 3D illusion for your. Human does not have 3D view. We only have stereo view.

In couple (or few) years "3D"-televions will hit the markets. They will be normal TFT panels, but they have mask that splits the image so that your both eyes will see slightly different image. It is based on this same method, too. In TV's case you don't need to cross your eyes tho because the TV does it for you (with that mask).

Like I said before, 3D and images doesn't fit in same phrase. Image is never three dimensional. When adding the third dimension, it becomes object (or model, or whatever you wish to call it). Images are always 2D. Image of 3D object is always projection.

[spysmasher]

Like I said before, 3D and images doesn't fit in same phrase. Image is never three dimensional. When adding the third dimension, it becomes object (or model, or whatever you wish to call it). Images are always 2D. Image of 3D object is always projection.

Actually, the English word "image" simply means a representation of a person or thing ... including such truly 3-D representations as a statue or bust. What you have been saying about "image" applies to the word "picture" -- which is by definition flat or 2-D -- but not the word "image." Etymology bears this out. "Image" comes from the Latin imago, which was often used by the Romans to refer to statues or busts; whereas "picture" comes from the Latin pictura which originally meant "a painting." So there is nothing contradictory about the term "3-D image," but, technically, it would have to refer to a statue or something like that. As you and others have already pointed out, though, people tend to use that term somewhat inaccurately to refer to a picture that gives the illusion of being 3-D.

[Twitch]

To add to this unless you have the necessary knowledge you can't visually understand things like photographs. We have evolved to see the illusion of depth and space in photographs, but when one was shown to someone who grew up in complete isolation from such things(a tribesman form a jungle) it made no sense to him, the illusion dissolved and all he saw was a flat mess of colours, which technically a photograph and all images really are. I guess this proves that it's our brains and not our vision that is responsible for creating the illusion of 3D.

[RMJ]

Actually, the English word "image" simply means a representation of a person or thing ... including such truly 3-D representations as a statue or bust. What you have been saying about "image" applies to the word "picture" -- which is by definition flat or 2-D -- but not the word "image." Etymology bears this out. "Image" comes from the Latin imago, which was often used by the Romans to refer to statues or busts; whereas "picture" comes from the Latin pictura which originally meant "a painting." So there is nothing contradictory about the term "3-D image," but, technically, it would have to refer to a statue or something like that. As you and others have already pointed out, though, people tend to use that term somewhat inaccurately to refer to a picture that gives the illusion of being 3-D.
Well, ok, you are right about that. :)

But since image is often used in place of picture I mixed up that exact meaning, too. But yea, you know what I meant. :) And when people talk about 3D images, they usually means 3D renders which are just 2D pictures, without any depth information.




To add to this unless you have the necessary knowledge you can't visually understand things like photographs. We have evolved to see the illusion of depth and space in photographs, but when one was shown to someone who grew up in complete isolation from such things(a tribesman form a jungle) it made no sense to him, the illusion dissolved and all he saw was a flat mess of colours, which technically a photograph and all images really are. I guess this proves that it's our brains and not our vision that is responsible for creating the illusion of 3D.

Yup, this is true, too. Photographs are completely flat. Only our brains can make some sense to them and imagine how the the objects in the picture should be if you were looking the same place in real life.

And it doesn't always work as supposed. :)

[Sir Wood]

Great, I've had LASIK for almost 4 years and now my vison is screwed and all crossed-eye. Thanks alot! (j/k) :D

[HibyPrime]

Actually, the English word "image" simply means a representation of a person or thing ... including such truly 3-D representations as a statue or bust. What you have been saying about "image" applies to the word "picture" -- which is by definition flat or 2-D -- but not the word "image." Etymology bears this out. "Image" comes from the Latin imago, which was often used by the Romans to refer to statues or busts; whereas "picture" comes from the Latin pictura which originally meant "a painting." So there is nothing contradictory about the term "3-D image," but, technically, it would have to refer to a statue or something like that. As you and others have already pointed out, though, people tend to use that term somewhat inaccurately to refer to a picture that gives the illusion of being 3-D.

Erm, "image," just as nearly every other word has multiple meanings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/image

1. a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.

In other words, RMJ and Spysmasher, you are both right.

[zemasterzzz]

I'd like to see an Alizée 3D model in a FPS! :eek:

If ur talking about a First Person Shooter. I defeinitely wouldn't want one there because then the virtual Alizee could die and all the players would be sad :(

and as for 1,2,3,and 4 D. I don't really care about the things that only exist in math they tend to be boring and worth practically nothing but can still get you a bad mark in school. You can classify it as anything you want but I want to see Alizee in real life, with as many dimensions as it may have:D

[mavsluver41]

Rather than pursue my off-topic escapades in the Motivator's thread, I thought I'd just bump this fossil of a thread.

3D/stereo imaging doesn't work that way. ;)
You need to do it like your eyes/brain work.

For stills; 2 pics with x and/or y off-set.
For moving pictures; 2 camera's with identical lenses etcetera.
The effect depends heavy on choosen focallength and object distance.

And after all you still need the aid of colorshifting or synchronised LCD glassses.

1 point of view (like this) with different object shape, just gives you headache. :p:D

I admit I am a complete amateur and yes these images do induce headaches, but some of them do work nonetheless :). And until one of us is able to get Lili in front of a camera, they shall suffice :p:

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/mavsluver41/stereo.jpg

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/mavsluver41/stereo2.jpg

And finally, a really good one from Acetone over at AF:

Yeah, the Ella, Elle L'a one worked the best.

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/3037/stereogramalizeeacoustiss5.png

[heyamigo]

be careful, many people got cross eyed from doing too much magic eye stuff. :p

[mavsluver41]

be careful, many people got cross eyed from doing too much magic eye stuff. :p

Haha, duly noted. Although, I actually did some research and found that crossing your eyes utilizes the same muscles that any other eye movement uses, so it actually makes your eyes stronger. But still, I think I'm done with these stereogram things...at least for a while :p.

[Idéaliser]

Heres a technique I learned to see any image in 3d (though it has to be duplicated).

If you know how to cross your eyes skip the next paragraph.

Put your finger about 1 foot infront of your eyes and focus on it, slowly move your finger toward your face until you can no longer focus on it anymore. You just learned how to cross your eyes, practice that some more - practice until you can do it without your finger.

Cross your eyes until the two images converge (or focus into the distance, though I think that is harder) and with a little practice you will be seeing this beauty in 3D

Dont worry if it takes awhile to figure it out, it took me almost 20 minutes..

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4625/untitled1rd2.jpg

wicked...that was sweet after about 5 mins of straining i finally saw it XD

[Fish]

Too much crossing eyes, head hurts :blink:

[Idéaliser]

Hehe, I liked your gifs, snatcher. And Ace's Acoustic one xD

[Idéaliser]

I like it, Hiby. Makes her pop right out to me.

For folks who wear glasses... take them off! That's very important for trying to get these "Magic Eye" type things the first couple times.

They work better with glasses for me, maybe coz im near sighted :D

[Amigo!]

All I see are twin Lili's... http://www.alizee-forum.com/images/smilies/icon_eek.gif

[user472884]

I DID IT I DID IT

the problem is that the pictures have to be slightly different.

The layer which would be the background and thus be behind Alizée, is on the same "plane of perception" (I don't know, I just made it up) so you can have a "magic eye" experience, without the magic eye gimmick.

simply, Alizée doesn't pop like she should because the pictures are exactly the same so we perceive them the same. If the second picture were taken after the photographer took a step to the right then it would work fine.

-----

I have trouble with my eyes, specifically depth perception. I can't do this normally, I have to squinch my face.

[Criss_pl]

I tried and I think I did it, woah. But as you write it's a bit hard, they should be taken with different angle. But if you really want to see that, it will be easy:p