Talk:Anaglyph 3D/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Complex with a hue needs to be defined

The article, in the nice tech section listing various hues used for left/right, needs to detail what "complex" means in reference to them. For example, is the "complex magenta" the red + blue expected, for which no single wavelength is a match (if I remember correctly), while the "complex green", rather than being one wavelength, is possibly a mix of two separate ones? And which two? The whole idea resembles the 6-hue 3D, with proximal but distinct wavelengths of red/green/blue being used, with one triad filtered out at each eye, allowing 3D without polarization or shutters, but expensive to do in flatscreens in 2012. C. Alex. North-Keys (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Excised, non-anaglyph text

The following does not refer to anaglyph images as the article defines them. If the article's definition is incorrect, please fix that.

There doesn't appear to be anything following...? rowley (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Conversion from 2D flat to 3D anaglyph

In recent years computer technology and professional skills have made it practical to convert still images, movies & video to 3D. Color anaglyph looks particularly good in HD, with animation content. See NASA Illustration converted to Anachrome 3D. A feature film like Star Wars might cost as much as $10 million to convert for theater showing. The HD DVD 3D version might cost a fifth of that amount.

Note: Information below relates to "traditional methodology", not the newer techniques, mentioned above.

The article tells you image editing techniques, but it doesn't specify which program to use. Example: sections "Anaglyphs from monochrome images" and "Anaglyphs containing color information". Pjacobi is right, those links don't contain much information for inclusion in an encylopedia article. Gyro666 1:29 December 21, 2005 (EST)

Regarding the specification of a program for analglph construction: I wrote the original content for these sections and constructed several of the example images using Photoshop, but this is not a generally available program for casual use and so thought it was not appropriate to be too specific. The information presented is already stretching the "Wikipedia is not a how-to manual" rule a bit and I did not want some deletionist targeting it. If interested parties would like to assist with a Wikibook concerning thechniques I would be glad to contribute. I have not used Photoshop Elements (often free with scanner or printer purchase). Perhaps someone who has can tell me if this can perform the channel separations necessary. I would think that any program that allows extraction of individual chanels from the images and their recomposition into a single image would be adequate for this task. - Leonard G. 04:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find measurable amounts of encyclopedically relevant information at these two commercial sites:

www.teawamutu.net/real/ difference. See the (ACB) 3-D Gallery.
www.anachrome.com/World

So I removed them from the article page.

Pjacobi 20:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It is link spam: A link to the main page of a website offering commercial services. And a rather ugly page BTW. You should at least deep link to the claimed tutorial. Due to danger of eye cancer, I wasn't able to find it on your website. --Pjacobi 17:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Importance of "Compatible" color anaglyph technology seems to elude to contributors to this page. Anachrome, is uniquely suitable for posting as 3D, but also provides a reasonably good 2D image for those not having glasses. Thousands of "anachrome compliant" images are posted on line by scientific and goverment sponsored sites like: 3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/. NASA/JPL includes Anachrome on their short 3D glasses vendor list. Google "Directory" shows, www.anachrome.com to be the #3 "most popular" 3D releated sites online, after only www.stereoscopy.com,& the official site of the Nat. Stereoscopic Assoc. The intemperate insults shown by :Pjacobi suggests a lot about that individual , in my opinion. I suggest User:Pjacobi may not be actually experienced enough professional work in this "arcane" subject to write Wiki articles about it.(assuming he wrote a good part of this article.)3D technique is not "cut and dried". various practicianers have varying levels of skill and equipment at their disposal. Anaglyph is becoming a professional skill. as is 2D to 3D conversion...not just a hobby.Nativeborncal 22:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You are both right. The link is not the kind of link spam we typically get, the kind which results in some of us having a short fuse when commercial links are concerned. Some of the images offered on the anachrome web site are nothing short of amazing – at least compared to the samples our own article offers. Nativeborncal is clearly knowlegeable in this area; he made valuable contributions to this article (even though he tends to get carried away by his enthusiasm) and donated some moderately useful images to WP. It wouldn't be fair to lump Nativeborncal together with the scum that tries to get a free ride. On the other hand, the anachrome website is awful. Not only is it ugly, it seems also cleverly designed to confuse the visitor (FWIW, the tutorial is here). Also, it is clearly commercial (even though what exactly they are selling takes a while to figure out as well). Then again, we do have many undisputed commercial links to major vendors of all kinds of stuff. It is quite possible that anachrome glasses are special enough to deserve a separate section, but the web site doesn't seem to offer any specific information. This page is tasteful web design without blatant advertising, but it's only a demonstration page for a real site. – What we seem to be lacking is unbiased people that know enough to provide a basic structure that the more biased experts can fill with their knowledge without killing NPOV. I can understand your frustration, Nativeborncal, but you seem to be too involved to write an encyclopedic article all by yourself (that's true for most of us in our areas of expertise), so you need to find a way to work with others, whether or not they not much less than you do.

I'll close my rambling with questions:

Where is this NASA/JPL shortlist of 3D glasses?
How come all the anaglyphs I ever saw in magazines are red/green rather than red/blue? I would have thought cyan/magenta would be much easier to print accurately in a standard printing environment, so what's the advantage of red/green?
How come the anaglyph software/webcam external links have survived that long? Now those are commercial links that add nothing of value to an encyclopedia.

Algae 22:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:3D Illustrations opinions solicited

Editors of this article may have interest and expertise that would be helpful in developing policy relating to use of 3D images here at Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:3D Illustrations and the talk page to participate. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Modern 3D developments for online images and digital video

This paragraph seems to be patent nonsense. The anaglyph displayed on the right seems like a perfectly normal red/cyan anaglyph, and neither more modern, nor less blurry than other angalyphs. I suggest it gets revised or removed. Rōnin 23:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact forget that, I just removed it. I looked at the site, and it features completely normal anaglyphs. The paragraph is probably nonsense. Rōnin 00:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered some informative text about the so-called "compatible" anaglyphs in the Stereoscopy article, so the talk about compatible anaglyphs wasn't nonsense as such, though I think we could do without an entire paragraph to showcase photos from the USGS. Perhaps we could discuss this on the Stereoscopy talk page and steal that particular section? After all, descriptions of specific anaglyph types belong here rather than there. Here's what it says:

Anachrome "compatible" method

A recent variation on the anaglyph technique is called "Anachrome method" [2]. This approach is an attempt to provide images that look fairly normal without glasses as 2D images to be "compatible" for posting in conventional websites or magazines. The 3D effect is generally more subtle, as the images are shot with a narrower stereo base, (the distance between the camera lenses). Pains are taken to adjust for a better overlay fit of the two images, which are layered one on top of another. Only a few pixels of non-registration give the depth cues. The range of color is perhaps three times wider in Anachrome due to the deliberate passage of a small amount of the red information through the cyan filter. Warmer tones can be boosted,and this provides warmer skin tones and vividness.

Plastic glasses frequently have better contrast and much better focus through the red filter, due to the 250 nanometer difference in the wave lengths of the red-cyan filters. With paper glasses, the red filter is blurry when viewing a close computer screen or printed image. Plastic glasses can offer a compensating diopter power to equalize the red filter focus shift relative to the cyan. Only molded plastic glasses can provide this focus fix. As of January 2006, more than 3,000 educational, or scientific images were offered on-line in this and similar "compatible" formats.

Rōnin 00:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Popularity of 3D movies and actual method used in the 50's

The fact of the popularity of 3D in the 1950s is indisputable. For example, a huge picture of a theater audience, all wearing 3d glasses appeard on the cover of LIFE magazine in the period. This was very mainstream and trendy. Self-serving, recent promoters of polarized film viewing are presently trying to create the REVISIONIST idea that the original 3D success was based on inferior anaglyph technology...so as to make their modern use of polarized 3D a "FALSE INOVATION". This reference is a good excercise in "DEBUNKING" commercially motivated historical revisionism. The two writers mentioned have indepently made the same clarification in their books and articles.3dnatureguy 18:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC) "Using color images, replace the red channel of the right-eye image with the red channel of the left-eye image. Here's how: select the entire right eye image (if the original is a crossed eye stereogram this will be on the left) and make a new document. Paste the right eye image in. Move the selection to the left eye image (with consideration as above for crossed eye stereograms) and using the channels dialog select the red channel. Copy the red channel from this source image. Select the new document and select the red channel. Paste the left eye image into the red channel. Depending upon the colors this..." - this paragraph is counter intuitive. Can anyone write it in simpler words please?

Depth adjustment

The caption for the second NASA image in this section includes the following:

"This follows the rule for a red left eye filter when distant objects are beyond the image plane: RRR-Red to Right Receding in the image as it appears without wearing the filters."

The caption makes it sound like a well-known rule-of-thumb is being cited. However, I cannot find "Red to Right Receding" appearing on any other web site regarding the subject. Furthermore, this rule is misleading in that it only applies for imagery where the foreground is darker than the background. For imagery where a light subject appears on a dark background, receding aspects of the subject will have the red channel appearing to the left of the cyan channel when viewed without filters.

I believe this section of the caption should be removed or revised. I am not an expert on this subject; what do those more learned than myself think? Jamieson630 17:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

3D IMAX movies don't belong on this page

They separate the images using polarisation, which is the vectograph technique, not anaglyph. Anaglyph images are separated using colour.

ok, but then 3d glasses shouldn't redirect here, since both technologies use some form of glasses to enable the 3d viewing. Speed8ump (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Section titled "Making an anaglyph image" -- howto content

This is quite well written, but it is how-to content, and Wikipedia is not a how-to. I feel that the fact that it is how-to content is self-evident, but in case others don't agree, I will explain why I feel this way:

It consists almost entirely of imperative sentences, and advisory declaratives (i.e. "it may be advisable to...").
The first sentence is about requirements needed to do something.
It is instructive rather than descriptive.
7.2 (and possibly others) use(s) Second person (discouraged in Wikipedia in general, and for this reason specifically).

This might qualify for transfer to Wikibooks. --Thin boy 00 @910, i.e. 20:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This section neglects the old school analog production techniques for 2D/3D print art conversion.Johnnyfontana (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Infinitec/Dolby 3D Perhaps Considered Related?

I think perhaps "Infinitec"/"Dolby3D" might fall under this article. Since it is a closely related. though distinct technology. Brief summary, the spectrum is split into 6 wavelengths, 2 red, 3 green and 3 blue; 1 red wavelength is assigned to each eye, 2 of the 3 green wavelengths to one eye 1 to the other eye (the central peak gives a good green with one wavelength, the two peaks to the side add up to something that looks like a good green), similar for blue. A filter wheel is used on the projector (though I forsee a 6 DLP projector, that doesn't need the color wheel), then matching filter glasses are given to the audience. The effect gives full-color stereoscopic viewing. Originally this was called "Infinitec" when introduced at SIGGGRAPH, but was branded Dolby3D (since Dolby obtained the technology). 69.12.141.101 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

3D movies

The sections 3D in the movies and Modern 3D movies seem to belong in a different article, one which addresses 3D movies in general and the various techniques used (of which anaglyph is just one). This article could then reference that article.Mooncow (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is color possible?

Allow a newcomer a silly basic question. It seems to me a very common one: “How comes color is possible?”. One filter is red, the other blue. Here only red rays pass, there only blue ones. I know this thinking is wrong, but what’s correct? I really would appreciate a chapter on “anaglyph and color”. Good (unexplained) picture examples at [1]. By the way, as the subject seems new and moving, I find the “how-to” explanations rather nice to have. What I miss are examples for the "Dual purpose, 2D or 3D "compatible anaglyph" technique". (I just got the famous Hitchcock movie “Dial M for Murder”, 1953, [2], in 3D via Internet, [3] further down.) Greetings --Fritz Jörn (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence, here, is unclear:

The cheaper filter material used in the monochromatic past dictated red and blue for convenience and cost. There is a material improvement of full color images, with the cyan filter, especially for accurate skin tones.

Does it mean that there is a more recent filter material, which is cyan, and that it results in more accurate skin tones? rowley (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC) 3d in photoshop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.147.93 (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction of color-blindness?

Are partially-anaglyphic contact lenses used to help those with red/green color blindness distinguish colors? If so, and if someone can find reliable sources, this should be added to the article. David spector (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Streetview

It seems that this feature is no more available at the moment. Kick it from the article or wait? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.207.57 (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It was an april fool's joke by Google, they do one every year. I don't understand why no-one picked that up. 124.177.2.97 - EDIT: I stand corrected it is apparently real anaglyph.(talk) 06:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC) - Oh and it is still available using right-click

Photoshop instructions

I think the detailed instructions for producing analglyph images in photoshop belong on a seperate page or maybe in a seperate wiki. It doesn't fit with the rest of the article which is more about the science and history of analglyph images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Shoeless (talk • contribs) 14:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Incredible artist

Hello could you please visit the artist: Dimitri Parant[4] and create an article? I'm new here and I do not know how, cordially --Thgiled (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment here: [5]--Thgiled (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone else pointed out on your talk page, there is a article-requesting page. If you feel so passionate about this artist, collect references and learned to edit Wikipedia yourself. Posting the same thing to multiple article talk pages isn't going to help you much. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

INFICOLOR advertising?

Is the INFICOLOR section in the comparison table a bit too much like an ad? 165.170.128.65 (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Anaglyphic Color Channels

Why no description about yellow/blue color scheme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.209.51.139 (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Color alteration with time...

I don't know who has noted this, but I assume it's been studied -- If you put on a pair of 3d anaglyph glasses, wear them for 5 or 10 minutes, then take them off, if you close off your eyes one at a time, they will have adjusted their color ranges to compensate for the color shifts. That is, the red-lensed eye will have shifted to see things as more blue, the blue-lensed eye will see things as more red. I'd assume this affects the functionality of anaglyph techniques over time, as your eye/brain recognizes something is hinky and attempts to compensate, much as it will over a longer time when given inverting lenses on a steady basis. I don't assume it's something to mention as I'm describing it -- that would be "personal research", but I assume there's been studies done of this which note it, and it's worthy of mention in an article about color anaglyphs, if someone knows of anything that is referable.
--OBloodyHell (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

this is an interesting point. --Fluffystar (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

'Russian' LCD Shutter system?

Under "Traditional anaglyph processing methods" there appears this sentence; "However, to get full-color photos or movies, a polarizing filter system (or an adapted Russian LCD shutter system) must be used."

Can someone please explain what a 'Russian' LCD shutter system is? How is it any different from commercial LCD shutter glasses such as the nVidia 3D Vision glasses or eDimensional's? --118.210.228.35 (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed that. --Fluffystar (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Single article?

I was wondering why 3d glasses redirects to this article. First of all, this article doesn't even link to polarized 3d glasses anywhere. Secondly, there should be one "3d glasses" article, with both this type, polarized, and any other kind of 3d glasses as links.

This is solved and can be archived.--Fluffystar (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

3D in the movies

From 1952 to 1955, 3D movies became very popular with more than 40 titles enjoying wide distribution , then lost ground as the competing Cinemascope widescreen systems became heavily promoted by major studios. According to American 3D historians Ray Zone and Dan Symnes^{[citation needed]}, and Hollywood 3D producers Allan Silliphant and Arch Oboler^{[citation needed]}, 98 percent of the screenings in theaters were presented in a polarised format by the 1950s. There was a resurgence of 3D interest in the sixties, seventies and eighties due to the simplification of stereo polarized projection in two "single strip" processes pioneered by Oboler (Spacevision) and Silliphant (Stereovision). Stereovision remained the main format for 35mm theatrical distribution of 3D until the emergence of the larger, IMAX 70mm 3D format.

Better topic for 3D film. --Fluffystar (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Modern 3D movies

Spy Kids 3-D was commercially successful in theaters using anaglyph paper glasses in 2003. The DVD did not sell or rent well, due to video retailers not wanting to deal with the paper glasses. The Polar Express, in 2004, used the superior IMAX polarized method for 3D. That film made $62 million in fewer than 90 theaters over two holiday seasons. It earned 14 times as much as the 2D version of the film, per screen, which is "un-precedented"^{[citation needed]}. A second, anaglyph film, 2005 by Robert Rodriguez, The Adventures of Shark Boy & Lava Girl failed to recover investment by many millions. The film had been processed in a highly "desaturated" 3D style, which was not very appealing. Disney released their 2005 Chicken Little in about 84 theaters, in digital polarized 3D. It earned nearly 3 times the gross of the much wider 2D release. 6 new films were slated for 3D release in 2006. They include Monster House, portions of the IMAX version of Superman Returns, The Ant Bully, Open Season, The Nightmare Before Christmas (converted to 3D), Fly Me to the Moon, all in polarized 3D. Anaglyph may have more applicability in the home market, should this crop of polarized 3D films prove commercially viable in theaters. At this point, anaglyph offers the only practical method for wide distribution of 3D home DVDs, or HD broadcasting in 3D, without costly electronic glasses.

Polarized lenses have no electronics in them. It's the screen which is the difference. The viewpoint has to have both polarizations over the same area, and CRT, LCD, any standard "screen" technology has no capability to have variably polarized images over the same area. It's not due to anything the movie-makers are or are not doing. Monitors simply do not have the capability that theaters use to show 3d movies.

This is solved and can be archived.--Fluffystar (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Dubois algorithm?

Some info on Eric Dubois's channel-separation algorithm might be nice. -- 92.226.26.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.unbeatable.co.uk/news/Google-Street-View-Goes-3D/283849.html
Triggered by \bunbeatable\.co\.uk\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Baffling statement

"Low cost paper frames or plastic-framed glasses hold accurate color filters that typically, after 2002, make use of all 3 primary colors." First, there are different sets of three primary colors, depending on whether you're referring to pigments or light: red, yellow, blue for pigments, and red, green, blue for light. Second, the light colors are more flexible now, since I went to school, and include things like cyan, magenta, and yellow. Third, I can't imagine how three colors are used for two images. Fourth, what is meant by "accurate"? Fifth, what does 2002 have to do with it? Sixth, does this technology allow for color perception, the way oppositely polarized gray lenses do, or is it strictly monochromatic? Seventh, I often become baffled by things I can't imagine. --Marshall "Unfree" Price 172.56.27.133 (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Inficolor - promotional/rewritable?

(Not the same as Infitec; keep reading)

I happened to notice this edit on a glance through the history.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with a total removal, given that some of the links could be useful as references (with suitable reformatting). Also, if we're displaying the multitude of systems with one eye red, it might be good to have a second example for green–magenta, at least to show the differing conventions for which color is assigned to which eye.

I haven't bothered to verify the liveness of any of the links, and as the user is vanished, I can't ask him/her for clarification. /Archive 1#INFICOLOR advertising? exists but received no replies. The Cyberbot II warning above seems irrelevant.

Can this material be rewritten to be less promotional, if that is really the problem? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

William Friese-Green?

The sentence about William Friese-Green in the History section seem problematic. There are no citations, and I can find no source confirming all of these claims. Wikipedia's own article on Friese-Green says nothing about him working on anaglyph 3D technology. I see a few sources online suggesting he experimented with stereoscopy, possibly using a 2-color system, but the references are vague. As an anaglyph 3D enthusiast for some years, I've never heard his name associated with the format. The sentence on him in this entry should probably be either removed or rewritten and properly cited. 67.80.221.195 (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Max Clarke

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anaglyph 3D. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110728080738/http://myweb.cableone.net/amh2004/2D_3D.html to http://myweb.cableone.net/amh2004/2D_3D.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anaglyph 3D. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110728080738/http://myweb.cableone.net/amh2004/2D_3D.html to http://myweb.cableone.net/amh2004/2D_3D.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anaglyph 3D. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anaglyph 3D. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)