Sketching in 3D?
Posted 28 August 2009 - 12:42 AM
When making a 3-D representation, ultimately it's the *relative* displacements which determine where in depth the object appears. It's not necessary to have some objects displaced to the left *and* others displaced to the right. All displacements can be made to just one side or just the other.
If you do choose to have a drawing with both left-displacement and right-displacement, some objects will appear to float in front of the frame while others will appear behind it. Those objects given no displacement with respect to the image frame will appear to lie in the same plane as the frame itself (and your monitor's screen.)
So you can see that you have the power to create objects which appear to float in the air closer than the screen or sink into the distance behind the screen's face.
Let's see some more! And hopefully some a bit bigger?
Posted 28 August 2009 - 01:56 AM
Here's my attempt at Albireo.
Posted 28 August 2009 - 05:06 AM
(pls. note that the background stars are REALLY in the back, so you will have to use a different focus for those and for Saturn)
Posted 28 August 2009 - 12:26 PM
I'm sorry. Of course your fantastic fly over is 4D! So anyone 5D ?
Posted 05 September 2009 - 02:07 PM
The picture on the website gave a little bit 3D. I tried the technique on some of my sketches, but it doesn't work. There is something "moving", but you can't call that 3D. Maybe the technique works only with pictures.
But thanks anyway for the link.
Posted 19 October 2009 - 04:22 PM
Posted 19 October 2009 - 05:23 PM
Posted 24 October 2009 - 10:09 PM
I separated the stars onto 7 layers with an 8th black background layer. I then duplicated this for L/R and moved each layer towards the middle to distance things 'farther' from the EP-circle.
Posted 26 October 2009 - 04:53 AM
I got the 3D fever.
M34 in 3D
btw, the key to create such 3d stereograms is that if you move a star to the right compared to the original, it will become a foreground star. if moving it to the left, it will become a background star. the more you move, the closer or farther it will be.
Sorry that I missed all this 3~D discussion as I was away traveling during this post. I hope I am not beating a dead horse with crossed eyes.
Starquake and Tenth Enemy made some interesting examples and Jeremy's Jupiter example looked quite realistic but I can [literally see] that the results are unpredictable in others as Starquake mentioned in an earlier post, some stars become foreground and others background. I assume he means to â€œmove a star in the â€˜Right Imageâ€™ to the left, or in the â€˜Right Imageâ€™ to the right as compared to the â€˜Left Image position? Am I understanding this correctly? It would take some lengthy study as to which one is trying to achieve as another commented that making foreground stars in our galaxy accidentally appear as in the background of an external galaxy would obviously be an image made in error. This can be fun but when we view distant galaxies in the eyepiece they do not appear as that much in three dimension (to me anyway.) It is rather subtle. If anything, we know that the stars in our galaxy are foreground and in front of the background external galaxies. I suppose that Chesley Bonestell created some 3~D effects if only for science fiction movie backdrops. We like to be entertained at the movies but not perhaps in a technically accurate sketch forum from scientific observation.
I was not actually trying to achieve 3~D effects but rather only putting my old photographs of the artwork next to the new for comparison as many write to me and ask how much more detail can be seen when viewing the original sketches up close, where they could view the originals or could I take better photographs?, then I realized that some stereo effects did occur if only in a subtle way, yet these are terrestrial images of say, on the moon, or viewing the moon or suns spheres in full image over an abstract foreground object, say my hand sketching. I have posted several of those but should probably give it up for now as they were really just to compare the improved photo imaging and not to make surreal 3~D novelties. *The 3~D was just an accidental additional effect in some of those images. The recent one of the large crescent moon over Portland actually has some considerable dimension, but I see that there are no comments after 3 days so I suppose that it only annoyed many people; possibly because the new color is quite different in the new image on the left * I just edited the image, reduced the image size as I realized tonight that it was too large to fit the screen in the original post >
Recent Comparison Photos of Moon Over Portland Created Accidental 3~D Stereo
It may have only disappointed many from the original photo colors. Hence the web and published books showing many varying images of well known artists masterpieces as Jay Scheuerle commented earlier, we realize is absurd.
However as Dr Paul Deister noted, a few of these could become nice displays in an office lobby to test the viewers minds eyes, I may have full sized images of the whole moon sketches printed to display fro this purpose. Further, I see that these only serve to annoy some who cannot see the effects. That is too bad as I believe they are merely trying too hard in the wrong direction; literally. Of course anyone may simply say, â€œThis is not for meâ€ out of frustration to not see the effectual image, like a fairground wild ride, certain motion effects can make some people become nauseated. That is yet another effect that is extreme and related to motion and the inner ear. But really, if you are making your eyes considerably uncomfortable in attempt to view stereo images, you may be doing something wrong.
Remember those floating subtle images hidden in the field of multicolored dots in large poster form in malls a few years ago? Anyoneâ€™s eyes can actually be trained to easily see those images. It is more about how we learn to use our eyes. Astronomers if anyone would eventually know this with averted vision. I for one learned that I must start with my eye glasses off and allow my eyes to cross in a relaxed way, the â€œthird imageâ€ emerges to the right, allowing the central one of the three to become the 3~D. Then I return my eye glasses but only to hold them out away from the actual wearing position to focus that image better. I also have only single vision lenses and not bifocals. I do not wear my glasses to read up close; only to see distance. Does this help anyone to try this?
If you force your eyes to try this by pushing them too hard to cross, it will only cause discomfort. Like many things in life we put ourselves through unnecessary strain when some things will just occur naturally if we allow them or learn them.
Iâ€™ll have to study the points about placement of stars, etc that Starquake mentions. It will take some doing to add this into an already long sketch session. Perhaps the long cloudy nights this winter will allow some experimentation in sketching. I would hope to discover a useful purpose for this rather than simply a novel fantasy image. But then, I may be beating a dead cross-eyed horse?
To possibly be continued,
Posted 26 October 2009 - 05:44 AM
Perhaps this is only subtle as I have not changed any placement of stars- Only pairing up of new and old photo images of the same pastel. This is one of the Andromeda Galaxy I made about a year ago as more an impression of what I believe to be a good example of what can be seen through the eyepiece in a 10 inch Newtonain from dark skies as opposed to what photographs show. [New Photo of old 19" X 25" pastel above.]
And the paring, next window following > New image on left- old image on right
Posted 26 October 2009 - 05:47 AM
Compare new and old photos of same sketch [19" X 25"] - New on left - old on right - A 3~D image may be viewed if desired.
Posted 26 October 2009 - 08:26 AM
Some other thoughts:
All the 3D sketching must be orientated by reality. 3D arrangement by planets and moons are showing results we can face eye by eye from our experience. More difficult are 3D structures form open star clusters. Necessary to get the information about the distance of the individual stars. Complex is also the view to galaxies. The spiral structure und the bulge is easy to define. But what is the exact 3D position in space for M31, M32 and M110? Sometimes it is very hard to decide the rule to be offside in soccer viewing sports on tv.