Comments on: Time for Space Jiggle

Time for Space Jiggle

bluedaniel — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:13:16 -0800

Experimenting with images using animated .gifs, Jim Gaspernini presents stereo images on the screen by simply putting the right and left images in an animated .gif. (more inside)

By: bluedaniel

bluedaniel — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:20:17 -0800

...Sort of reminds me of a "lite" version of Pips Labs, which takes Shockwave to another level altogether.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:21:34 -0800

Why on earth does this work so well? The images really do look 3D, simply by replacing stero vision in space with stereo vision in time. Place in "why didn't someone think of this before" box...

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:24:02 -0800

Holy shit, that actualy works! I'm going to have to email my boss, since I work in VR. Yes, that's right, I'm a programmer at a Virtual Reality Applications Center. I make $9/hr.

By: Ynoxas

Ynoxas — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:26:47 -0800

Neato. Such an elegant integration of existing technologies. *clap*

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:27:37 -0800

Now, for true stereoscopic vision you'd need to be looking at these through a pair of glasses with synchronized electronic shutters -- say, LCD based -- such that your left eye was shaded when the GIF is displaying the right-eye image, and vice versa.

By: bluedaniel

bluedaniel — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:30:00 -0800

"Now, for true stereoscopic vision you'd need to be looking at these through a pair of glasses with synchronized electronic shutters -- say, LCD based -- such that your left eye was shaded when the GIF is displaying the right-eye image, and vice versa." I had to read that a few times over. I swear it read LSD. And here I was, all excited.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:30:44 -0800

...although come to think of it, you'd really want such a system to be operating at a much higher frequency than these GIFs are animating at. 10-15 fps would be the minimum I'd guess. On preview, bluedaniel, I think that would work too.

By: GriffX

GriffX — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:30:49 -0800

I think it works because the brain can extrapolate movement at more than 24 frames per second. Given two frames of anything in close sucession, we can see it (or think that we can) from many more angles than we actually do.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:31:52 -0800

LSD probably would enhance these :P

By: bluedaniel

bluedaniel — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:34:38 -0800

Griffx, clever you mention that. I imported the layered .gif into Flash, tweened an animation for a 1 second rollover, and exported it at various FPS. Hence, when I moused over the image, the next one faded in, and the results do vary depending on the frame per second. Good damn point. Cheers.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:36:47 -0800

George_Spiggott: ...although come to think of it, you'd really want such a system to be operating at a much higher frequency than these GIFs are animating at. 10-15 fps would be the minimum I'd guess.

No, I don't think so. Normal sterioscopic images work by presenting one image to one eye, and another to another. That way when the brain 'merges' the two images together you pull out the depth data by comparing the two. In order for this thing to work, your brain needs to be able to process both images independantly. If the frequency was to fast, it would only look like two seperate images overlayed, and the effect would be gone, just like looking at a regular sterioscopic thing without shutter glasses, or whatever I think the low frame rate is nessisary.

By: skallas

skallas — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:40:56 -0800

> Now, for true stereoscopic vision you'd need to be looking at these through a pair of glasses with synchronized electronic shutters -- say, LCD based I believe that's exactly how the Sega 3D glasses for the master system worked.

By: jdroth

jdroth — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:41:55 -0800

I don't care how this works; it's pretty damn cool!

By: bluedaniel

bluedaniel — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:43:33 -0800

Again, have a gander at the PIPS Labs link I mentioned (could get lost in the comment shuffle). It's not of course any stereoscopic imagery, but it does reveal a 3 dimensional image, with one hell of a twist. And it's damn cool.

By: marvin

marvin — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:44:17 -0800

So if you were to run a sequence of stereo pairs at some frame rate < 15 fps would you get moving 3D? But scale? On a TV or at a cinema? Cue plethora of gimmick commercials...

By: crumbly

crumbly — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:51:58 -0800

left right left right left right left rightleftrightleftrightlftrghtlftrght dammit! must blink faster.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:00:00 -0800

I don't know if it would be useful on a larger scale, marvin (certainly not a whole movie done like this). For a start, the flickering results in a detail. The "rocky mountains" picture is fantastic, but with the constant flickering you can't take in the detail of the flowers in the foreground, for example. This would get frustrating over a long period. However, it's a great little trick to give some depth to images. It's amazing how different photographs are when a third dimension is added. You can't get an impression of what the Old Stone Gate really is without the depth to look down the path.

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:12:11 -0800

I don't care how this works; it's pretty damn cool! No, the LSD thing was just an aside.

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:17:18 -0800

Check out the unit on Sigfried, eh? I'm not sure I want to watch it wiggle anymore.

By: themadjuggler

themadjuggler — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:33:01 -0800

Instead of blinking left-right-left-right at 15fps, try alternately covering each eye with a hand in rapid succession. This turns into an awkwardly slapping yourself in the face, but it seems to work now and again. Regardless, this is amazing stuff.

By: squirrel

squirrel — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:38:00 -0800

Freaking amazing. I think we should flood this thread with small animated gifs of our own making (hosted from own servers, natch). Anyone who has a digital cameral can do this effect, no? I'm looking at you, quonsar. Also: right, bluedaniel... pips... we got it the first time. Lame.

By: Mars Saxman

Mars Saxman — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:39:55 -0800

Isn't this a parallax effect? The images appear to pivot around a point; the more rapidly a particular section of image moves, the farther from the point it appears to be.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:47:10 -0800

It is Mars - the point is that usually parallax effects are achieved by showing different images (with sections therefore different "distances" apart) to different eyes. Here, both eyes are seeing the same image at the same time, but the brain is somehow automatically working out which eye each image "belongs" to. Another thing: notice how you never get an "inverse" 3D effect with these pictures? You know how if you look at a "Magic Eye" picture by going cross-eyed instead of...ummm.anti-cross-eyed, all the "in" sections appear as "out" sections? Balls appear as dimples etc.? This never seems to happen with these "flicking" images. The brain's doing all the work, because you can't trust the eye.

By: notsnot

notsnot — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:48:07 -0800

Which came first, the blort or the pancakes?

By: madamjujujive

madamjujujive — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:50:25 -0800

bluedaniel, I second your endorsement of pips lab, it is one of my all time favorite sites for cool visuals. I'm glad you posted this Gaspernini site - I came across it recently too, found it quite striking, thought about posting it here, but certainly couldn't have done the technical discussion justice. Here are some fun Burning Man images done in the same technique (I think), along with the same images presented in traditional 3-d format. (btw, your site has some neat things going on in the studio, too!)

By: y2karl

y2karl — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:58:15 -0800

Also: right, bluedaniel... pips... we got it the first time. Lame. Now, now--it's one of a pair in a strobing 3D comment.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:59:37 -0800

Try looking at it with one eye covered. Maybe I'm just a mutant superman or something, but I still get a distinct -- if lessened -- 3d effect *WITH ONE EYE!!!!!!!*

By: squirrel

squirrel — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:20:38 -0800

Now, now--it's one of a pair in a strobing 3D comment. LOL! And if I scroll them both onto the page, I can see a flickering image of mathowie deleting them both!

By: mathowie

mathowie — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:42:56 -0800

Wow, it kind of works for me and I don't have stereoscopic vision. But do you have to be naked for it to work?

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:08:11 -0800

Yes. Take off your clothes and it will look even better.

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:23:37 -0800

Wow, it kind of works for me and I don't have stereoscopic vision Eh?

By: PsychoKick

PsychoKick — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 01:45:21 -0800

I still get a distinct -- if lessened -- 3d effect *WITH ONE EYE!!!!!!!* Two eyes with overlapping fields of vision aren't necessary to discern 3D information. They're just necessary if you want "instant" 3D information that does not require movement. These pictures are providing the movement, hence 3D information is available no matter how many eyes are being used. Rabbits and other animals with side-mounted eyes utilize a similar technique whenever they inspect an area. Side-mounted eyes do not overlap their fields of vision, so instead rabbits will glean 3D information from a scene by bobbing their heads up and down.

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 02:41:04 -0800

So when are we going to see porn in this format?

By: Espoo2

Espoo2 — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 02:50:38 -0800

pips labs doesn't seem any where near as 3d to me....

By: planetkyoto

planetkyoto — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 03:19:58 -0800

The one that was on Geisha Asobi this week had a faster frame rate, and seemed to work better for me. (scroll down a bit)

By: jamespake

jamespake — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 03:56:15 -0800

the point is that usually parallax effects are achieved by showing different images (with sections therefore different "distances" apart) to different eyes. Motion parallax isn't stereoscopic and has been used to suggest depth in sideways scrolling games - I've never seen it used like this though with the rapid alternation and it does produce something much closer to stereoscopy.

By: Witty

Witty — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:13:07 -0800

Ok... how does one go about doing this? Can it be done without a bunch of fancy equipment? I have to try.

By: jamespake

jamespake — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:34:45 -0800

Get some Gif animator software and two pictures taken from slightly different positions (about the same distance as between your eyes). Load them into the animator software, set a short delay and that seems to be it. You'll have to play with the timings, and it would help if you had a stereoscopic camera. The choice of pictures is pretty important too. Some years ago, the BBC showed a '3D' episode of Dr Who that didn't require special glasses - I missed it but I was told that it was quite effective although it was strange because the camera kept moving - maybe it's a similar concept. This could be good with video.

By: Witty

Witty — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 05:12:06 -0800

A little research on my part would help too.

By: raygirvan

raygirvan — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 05:23:13 -0800

The Dr Who episode, I recall, used the method where you shade one eye with a sunglass lens; with the cameria rotating, you get a 3D effect (something to do with perception lag between shaded and unshaded eyes). As to the original post, I've seen this described elsewhere as "wobble stereo". Nice implementation here, which uses a mouseover so that the viewer controls the flick rate.

By: whatnotever

whatnotever — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 07:49:39 -0800

I've run into this accidentally when browsing through my own photos. If I take two photos from approximately the same vantage point, then I get this effect when flipping through them in my image browser. *Flip-forward* "Yup" *Flip-forward* "Uh-huh." *Flip-forward* "Whoa..." *Flip-back* "Wait a min..." *Flip-forward-flip-back-flip-forward-flip-back......* Any browser that caches images and has a simple next/prev keybinding (I use ACDSee) works fine, and you don't even have to make a GIF.

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 07:53:32 -0800

here's a stereoscopic image I made of my room mate, fighting robot. to look at it, you just have to cross your eyes a bit until the red dots on his chests combine. and here's an unrelated image.

By: adamrice

adamrice — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 08:41:41 -0800

Seems like wiggle-stereo is what lomos were invented for. If only there were a digi-lomo...

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 09:32:35 -0800

Wow. This is a great find, bluedaniel. Apparently some other people have been doing it and it's not new to everybody, but to me this is simply revolutionary, swapping time for space. Great. I love how the Burning Man photos, especially, make it look like it's really windy. Oh, and Blue Stone, what, that third one's not enough for you? I don't know how much more I could handle in this format.

By: grahamwell

grahamwell — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 10:00:04 -0800

In the early eighties someone tried to adopt this system for television. They made quite a splash and for a while it was the next big thing - the holy grail of convincing stereo images on a regular TV. The picture involved gently wobbling the camera between left and right eye positions so the camera was always in motion (albeit very small and predictable). The stereo effect was quite convincing but the wobble was fatally offputting. The whole idea seems to have been lost without trace. Shame really - it was half way there.

By: kokogiak

kokogiak — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 10:58:20 -0800

Just for kicks, I made one of these (here) out of an old Nasa Mars Pathfinder stereo set. Looks cool, though the offset is larger than the ones mentioned earlier in this thread.

By: bluedaniel

bluedaniel — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:27:58 -0800

I heard from Jim Gaspernini (I wrote him after I'd posted this). I discovered that Burning Man is also his website. Well, at least I didn't know it was. I also see I'm not original in pointing out the works, madamjujujive was way ahead of me. Sorry about that! (but damn, thanks for the compliments on the Studio. Ya humbled me.)

By: bluedaniel

bluedaniel — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:35:04 -0800

kokogiak, did you just make that, or had you done so at an earlier time?

By: kokogiak

kokogiak — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:00:05 -0800

Bluedaniel, I just made it - it wasn't hard - two images I found on NASA's site, layered on top of each other in Adobe ImageReady - saved as animated gif.

By: davros42

davros42 — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:43:13 -0800

Blue Stone, I actually have a book of Stereoscopic porn, old school pin-ups so it's good stuff... I wonder how long it'll be before we see annoying Livejournal icons of this...

By: mdn

mdn — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:27:44 -0800

weird, they don't look particularly 3D to me, just really wiggly (which gives me a bit of a headache). I normally have looping off anyway, so I wouldn't have known there was anything special going on if not for the thread...