Perhaps this fellow did in the hapless Rodentia Jackalopus Barsoomi.
Posted on 02/10/2004 4:52:32 PM PST by blam
I can speak with authority about "drunken vision" . . . (survived the 70's) . . . "When I wuz young & dumb I wuz young & dumb."
No - I have no probs fusing the images into a stereogram (ability to make my eyes 'diverge' slightly to fuse the images - the opposite of crosseyed); it's just that there's very little common-area in the two images: you see a very narrow strip of 3D with too much extra on each side.
ALSO, the two cameras are set farther apart from each other than the typical human interpupillary distance (IPD): better for photogrammetry (and room for the filter wheels and stuff) but worse for stereograms. Take a look at some of the big, raw images: the stuff in the distance fuses well enough while the closest objects may be missing from either image. And, 'cause the IP distance is larger than human, the images appear to have less depth than they would if you were really there to see them.
Kind of like looking at a scene through large porro-prism binocs: the objectives are farther apart than your IPD so the objects in your field of view appear closer to each other (depth-wise) than they appear to the naked eye.
I spread out the fingers of my right hand, put the tip of my thumb against the bridge of my nose, and have my pinky hover about three inches away from the monitor's screen. My hand blocks the L image from my R eye and vice-versa, and, gives about the right distance so that I don't have to do much if any eye crossing/uncrossing. Woiks like a chahm.
Me too...we're best off to leave those memories in the past.
Perhaps this fellow did in the hapless Rodentia Jackalopus Barsoomi.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.