Stereo Waterfall Image

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Doug Jewell - 29 Jun 2008 12:33 GMT

Was out today at one of the local parks, and inspired by
some of the recent stereo posts, and also the comments about
waterfall chasing, decided I'd combine the two.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdaj/2620916982/
Yes the S2IS - my GX10 is still off at repair (getting close
to 2 months now). I don't have a filter adaptor for the S2
so I was limited in how slow I could get the exposure. This
was 1/6sec at F8. This wasn't quite slow enough to get the
water even between both exposures, so the stereo effect does
go a bit funny at the waterfall part. When I eventually get
the GX10 back I'll have a go with my ND8 filter so I can get
down to around a second exposure - that should be sufficient
to get the water smooth so there are no glitches with it.
I've also managed to acquire a pair of old HP cameras - I'm
thinking of bolting them to a piece of board so I can take 2
simultaneous exposures, which will negate any issues of the
subject moving. Kid throwing a ball here I come!

Also here's one of a fountain in another local park that I
did a few months ago, but took til tonight to process it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdaj/2620952248/
I like how even though the water spray is very fine you can
actually see that is in front of the fountain.

Reply to this Message

Mark Thomas - 30 Jun 2008 03:58 GMT

> Was out today at one of the local parks, and inspired by some of the
> recent stereo posts

I think it is rapidly becoming a sickness... (O:

>, and also the comments about waterfall chasing,
> decided I'd combine the two.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdaj/2620916982/

Cool - nice effect, but two things:
- needs to be bigger - I think there is a lower limite of detail for any
given scene, and that one is a bit too low for me! (unless I missed a
link to a bigger version?)
- those white hot rocks hurt my eyes a bit (but then I'm completely
obsessed with burnt highlights, so ignore me and ask Noons!)..

Personally I think you should have added HDR to the mix as well - I
mean, you took two images, so why not 4 and a pile of extra work? (O:

> Yes the S2IS - my GX10 is still off at repair (getting close to 2 months
> now).

2 Months???? Hmm. That's a definite mark-down for Samsung.. Are you
listening, Samsung? I might have been a customer for the GX20 or 30...

> I've also managed to acquire a pair of old HP cameras - I'm thinking of
> bolting them to a piece of board so I can take 2 simultaneous exposures,
> which will negate any issues of the subject moving. Kid throwing a ball
> here I come!

Whoops - I'd forgotten about that... Thanks for the reminder!

> Also here's one of a fountain in another local park that I did a few
> months ago, but took til tonight to process it.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdaj/2620952248/
> I like how even though the water spray is very fine you can actually see
> that is in front of the fountain.

I like the first one better, again I'd like to see a larger version.
The spray seems a little strange to my eyes - too far in front? - I
wonder if that is the same effect as I got here:
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/weird3d.jpg
- where the cloud between the pylons came too far forward because of
its movement between frames...

Reply to this Message

Doug Jewell - 30 Jun 2008 13:55 GMT

>> Was out today at one of the local parks, and inspired by some of the
>> recent stereo posts
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> given scene, and that one is a bit too low for me! (unless I missed a
> link to a bigger version?)

Bugger - it's flickr, looks like it only allows members to
see the high res version - I fiddled and fluffed about but
couldn't see an option to turn on access to it. Sorry bout that.
Try this link to the actual JPG image that it has at high
res - I dunno if this will work, but give it a go.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/2620916982_da8451ee72_b.jpg

> - those white hot rocks hurt my eyes a bit (but then I'm completely
> obsessed with burnt highlights, so ignore me and ask Noons!)..

Must be your monitor :-P
I just had a poke around with photoshop's eyedropper, and
only found a handful of small areas with 255's - lots of
254's though!

> Personally I think you should have added HDR to the mix as well - I
> mean, you took two images, so why not 4 and a pile of extra work? (O:

I was going to do a stepped out panorama as well, just to be
difficult :-;

>> Yes the S2IS - my GX10 is still off at repair (getting close to 2
>> months now).
>
> 2 Months???? Hmm. That's a definite mark-down for Samsung.. Are you
> listening, Samsung? I might have been a customer for the GX20 or 30...

Yeah - overall it's been a fantastic camera. It did have an
issue where the sensor was 1.5 degrees tilted relative to
the viewfinder. Not a major fault, but quite annoying. It
was coming up to the end of it's warranty so thought I'd
send it off to get fixed while I still had warranty on it.
The repairer is waiting for a calibration tool to come from
Samsung. It's starting to wear thin so I'll start making
louder noises very soon. I kinda suspect that if it was the
Pentax version I wouldn't have been waiting so long. I've
had good results with Pentax film cameras I've had to get
repaired.

>> I've also managed to acquire a pair of old HP cameras - I'm thinking
>> of bolting them to a piece of board so I can take 2 simultaneous
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> I like the first one better, again I'd like to see a larger version. The

Try this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3020/2620952248_6aaf59d304_o.jpg

> spray seems a little strange to my eyes - too far in front? - I wonder
> if that is the same effect as I got here:
> http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/weird3d.jpg
> - where the cloud between the pylons came too far forward because of
> its movement between frames...

Possible. It's quite amazing what the eye can put together.
Yesterday I took a pair of shots of an ugly building at the
local uni (the gardens are on the uni grounds). The S2IS,
being the wonderful camera that it is, completely ballsed up
the focus on the 2nd image - we're talking very blurred. I
tried viewing them as a stereo pair anyway - 1 sharp image,
1 blurred image. Amazingly, it snapped into a sharp 3D image
quite quickly. My "image processing unit" was obviously
smart enough to only use the blurry image as a guide for
depth, and rely on the sharp image to give detail of the scene.

Reply to this Message