Join 3,497 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Moving pictures
March 19, 2012 9:07 PM   Subscribe

Stereographic drawings from Dain Fagerholm.
posted by unliteral (21 comments total) 21 users marked this as a favorite

 
I had to check this - took a screenshot - and yes, stereo effect gone.

This is a cool way of getting nauseous.
posted by mattoxic at 9:15 PM on March 19, 2012


Wow these are great! Although I'm surprised the site isn't using that script that makes pot smoke come out the speakers.
posted by griphus at 9:17 PM on March 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


cool!...i wonder if he used this 3D drawing pad set that I saw at the art supply store...
posted by sexyrobot at 9:38 PM on March 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


Saw one of these come up on Tumblr a few weeks back and wondered who it was by. Nice one!
posted by Jimbob at 11:22 PM on March 19, 2012


Related, kind of...
posted by quazichimp at 11:43 PM on March 19, 2012


Here's the same technique used to interesting effect for a music video (from this previous MeFi thread with even more links to stereoscopic fun in the comments).
posted by kilo hertz at 12:03 AM on March 20, 2012 [1 favorite]


Wow, I did not know motion could make this happen. Thought you had to "cross your eyes and kind of uh...look uh...PAST the picture.....just keep trying...."

This is so cool.
posted by Defenestrator at 12:38 AM on March 20, 2012


This is really cool. Here's his tumblr.
posted by hypersloth at 12:49 AM on March 20, 2012


I often use my iPhone in bed when I'm not wearing wearing my glasses. Since my eyes are really bad, I typically have to hold the screen about 3 inches in front of my face in order to read it. And in order to keep from training my eyes to be totally crossed all the time, I close my right eye and just use my left.

It took a moment for me to realize, when looking at the images, that I was seeing the stereoscopic effect with just one eye open.

I thought that was pretty darn cool of my brain. Does your brain do that too?
posted by seanmpuckett at 3:35 AM on March 20, 2012


@seanmpuckett
It does work for one eye.
If I am not wrong...this is the way
birds see 3 D ...they are looking out
of the side of their head with one eye and
they move their head back and forth
to create the sensation of depth.
posted by quazichimp at 4:31 AM on March 20, 2012


Not really stereographic. The illusion of depth is created by simulating parallax. So yes, it works with one eye.
posted by Trace McJoy at 6:30 AM on March 20, 2012


These were amazing. Thanks.
posted by gemmy at 6:54 AM on March 20, 2012


Not really stereographic. The illusion of depth is created by simulating parallax. So yes, it works with one eye.

Well, they contain stereographic data.

I think he probably does this by drawing the scene once, then taking photoshop and manipulating a copy to have a different perspective. It could be done by drawing textures onto an actual 3D model, but that seems unlikely.
posted by delmoi at 7:26 AM on March 20, 2012


Definitely not stereographic. "3D GIFs" is more accurate.

This is the first time I've seen someone doing this with drawings, although the idea is widespread on the web, and easy to do with photos: 1 2nsfw 3 4
posted by IAmBroom at 7:47 AM on March 20, 2012


I love these. I have a slightly wonky eye, so no stereoscopy for me. Turns out, you don't really need it, except probably in competitive sports. Parallax is quite sufficient for day-to-day stuff.

On the other hand, if I had stereoscopic vision I think I'd enjoy nature more, and be better and finding things. Big piles of stuff are just... big piles of stuff, it's harder to differentiate things. Also snowfalls are supposed to look lots cooler in 3D, and I imagine trees and underbrush would too.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:08 AM on March 20, 2012


Other random thought: these are sort of like cinemagraphs in space, instead of time.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:16 AM on March 20, 2012


I think he probably does this by...

I don't know how he does it but the easiest way for me to imagine doing this would be to draw the image using several layers, each one a little more "near" to the viewpoint, then sliding the layers with the nearest ones getting the most move. Then you might have to clean up the final results a little.

Emily Cicierga made an image like this a while back and explained how she did it and she just noodged bits around although I suspect stuff like the snowflakes were their own layer.
posted by Trace McJoy at 8:58 AM on March 20, 2012


Definitely not stereographic. "3D GIFs" is more accurate.

Again, they are stereographic, if you extracted the frames, put them side by side and looked at them cross-eyed, you'd get the same effect.
posted by delmoi at 9:05 AM on March 20, 2012


(or rather, you'd get a more 'true' 3D effect)
posted by delmoi at 9:06 AM on March 20, 2012


Again, they are stereographic, if you extracted the frames, put them side by side and looked at them cross-eyed, you'd get the same effect.

So, delmoi, what you're saying is that if you separated the frames, changed them, then did something utterly different with them, they'd be stereographic? So they're currently stereographic? Gotcha.

And this vial of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen is a cookie.
posted by IAmBroom at 1:08 PM on March 20, 2012


It is pretty obvious that he draws it once and then warps the image around to create the second perspective. Lot of ugly little stretch marks if you look.
posted by hellphish at 4:36 PM on March 20, 2012


« Older OneTinyHand.com...  |  Classic seafood and fish recip... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments