Telescope Reviews: Sketching in 3D?

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 “move a star in the ‘Right Image’ to the left, or in the ‘Right Image’ to the right as compared to the ‘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, “This is not for me” 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? Anyone’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 “third image” 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.

I’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,

Mark

Edited by markseibold (10/26/09 05:58 AM)