Remember these? 3D images

In reply to Trent :

Thomas Kinkade!  The Painter Of Crap™!

In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :

1.  In my view, the rim of the spiral is proud of the background image, and burrows into the image as it winds toward the center.

3.  You're right!  I hadn't tried that.  It either worked seamlessly or required minimal refocus to pop back in.

To the folks struggling with these - in the first image, if you're starting to get a vague impression of a circle in the middle, you're getting close.

Maybe this will help.  Often, the 3D part is not related to the image, but in this case, it is:

Focus between the middle 2 pups and cross your eyes until the images double and merge so a 7th pup appears, then just adjust your focus until it snaps in.

I was looking at this one in a slightly larger format and it worked perfectly.  It is a little reduced here, and the 3D effect works but has some odd doubling of the stereo image.

Maybe a simpler image will help:

Here's another like the beagle.  Try to make a 7th parrot appear at the center:

Oh, and big thanks to the editor who fixed my thread title.

Driven5 said:

In reply to ShawnG :

That's an easy enough hypothesis to test. Do you have a preference for how you would like to be proven wrong? While the first two have been more or less described, would you want us to PM you descriptions of the second two? Or perhaps you'd like to post a few where only you know where you pulled them from and what descriptions they were tagged with, and have us describe them?

You seem kind of upset by my tongue-in-cheek hypothesis. 

Are you ok?

In reply to ShawnG :

Overcommitted tongue in cheek, meet overcommitted tongue in cheek. 

Written form sucks for conveying some things.

I've never seen anything, and paintings like T. K's just look two dimensional, to me. 
Never doubted they are there, I've always known I don't have enough depth perception to pass any standardized test. 
I'm very slightly more left eye dominant. But mostly, don't see the difference, right from left

unfocusing on those, just makes 'em look, well, out of focus!!!

Duke said:

In reply to Trent :

Thomas Kinkade!  The Painter Of Crap™!

 

How was that insipid garbage so popular? It was EVERYWHERE

In reply to Duke :

again on my 2nd LCD monitor, i rescaled so the images are 7" wide by 5.5" tall, and goddamn you're right, that spiral goes into, not out of, the screen.

after you achieve 3D focus, move your head side to side and see if the spiral tilts.

with the lady runner, i could barely achieve 3D focus to make it out at full screen size. i was seeing two 3D images but they were overlapping and appeared to be pressed into the background rather than standing proud of it.

also, in my earlier "how to see" post, i should have said that i cross my eyes and then slowly uncross them until i start to see 3D effect, then let them relax until 3D focus is achieved.

the ears of corn across the top are very vivid in 3D. strangely, when i started this one by crossing my eyes, i saw the large image as pressed into the background and i couldn't begin to tell what it was. so i started from normal focus and relaxed into it, and that's when the large image appeared as being in the foreground.

EDIT: wow, i went back and looked at them all again using both techniques. every time i start with eyes crossed, i see the 3D as sunken, and i can't tell what they are supposed to be. starting from normal vision and relaxing into 3D focus makes me see the 3D image in the foreground.

03Panther said:

I've never seen anything, and paintings like T. K's just look two dimensional, to me.

Kinkade paintings aren't supposed to have any 3D effect.  The point was just that they were popular around the same time as the stereograms, and usually the stereogram kiosk was near the Thomas Kinkade store for some reason.

Trent said:

Duke said:

Thomas Kinkade!  The Painter Of Crap™!

How was that insipid garbage so popular? It was EVERYWHERE

For the same reason there is a Hallmark network, I suppose.  To a certain type of person they are sweetly nostalgic for a time and place that never really existed.

In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :

Yeah, if I tilt my head a bit, the spiral tilts.

In general, I find that if I am close to getting the 3D effect but it won't quite snap, moving my eyes up and down a little on the image can push it over the edge.  Once it's there, it's solid, and I can look around the image quite a bit.

For the corn one as posted, the central part is 2.5 ears of corn, with a double ear slightly back and a narrow, not-quite-formed ear center front.  This didn't happen in the original size image; there was just a single large ear in the middle.  Oddly enough the rows at top and bottom are clear and effective in either version.

Some of the contouring can be quite subtle - you can see the hems of the runner's shorts, and a wrinkle in her jersey, for instance.

Duke said:

Kinkade paintings aren't supposed to have any 3D effect.  The point was just that they were popular around the same time as the stereograms, 

 

One of the things folks that liked them always mentioned, was the "depth " he captured. To have depth, requires a 3rd dimension, or, the appearance of one. 
I know they don't have a hidden image like the others. 

In reply to Duke :

On a screen made of pixels, I can see the one white spot, is a bit to the left of center, and the other is even farther off to the right. 
zooming in, I guess the white part has some trees without leaves in there. 
was there another point?

In reply to 03Panther :

If you do the same unfocus / refocus trick, a third image appears between them that has 3 levels of depth when you look through the porthole.

I thought reducing the image complexity as far as possible might help folks who are having trouble getting the effect.

I was certified in a lot of Nondestructive Testing, Mag Particle, X-Ray etc., so every 6 months or so I had to get checked out for color blindness.  Seen 'em.