Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Asiatic hybrid lillium stereogram.jpg

Asiatic hybrid lillium stereogram

 * Reason:Something a bit different. The component images stand up quite well to individual quality scrutiny. Adds value to the article. It may take a little practise to get the viewing technique right. It is best to view this as large as possible whilst still having the entirety of each image visible.
 * Articles this image appears in:Stereogram
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator If you are having trouble viewing this then the technique is very similar to that for a magic eye. --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose Even though I'm a stereophoto freak myself, I can't support this. The subject is a bit too limited for a good stereo effect (basically, two planes, flower and background), and there's an error in the caption (alternatively, L and R images must be switched)... If you do as instructed, you get a reverse, pseudo-stereo effect. You need to relax your eyes, not cross them. Images like these also don't work in large size (you can't relax or cross your eyes enough on a 1000+ pixel image...) --Janke | Talk 07:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can do it with one image each on a seperate 21in monitor :P. Secondly the pixel size is irrelevant, you can choose to view it at any thumbnail size you desire and the pixel size can have a variety of relationships to the physical size (eg print at 300dpi). Caption is fixed. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't 'do it' at all. I'm normally quite okay with those stereograms, but for some strange reason, I simply cannot get my eyes to focus on the middle 'third' image. I can see it clearly as a third image, but very blurry. I can even vaguely see the stereo effect, albeit very blurred. Looks a little bit like this, with the flower standing out slightly against the background, but still definitely blurry, and no matter how hard I try, I cannot get a good focus on the centre flower. Are my eyes being funny (I usually have perfect vision) or are others having this problem too? I've tried various sizes/distances, and it seems to get worse the further away I get, but conversely, the closer I get the more my eyes strain to keep the two images together.
 * Actually, I just had a re-think about what Janke said. I don't think relaxing your eyes works. Relaxing them causes them to look straight ahead (ie not converge) but out of focus. But I find what needs to be done is that you DO need to cross your eyes, so that your left eye looks at the right image, and vice-versa. This is the only way to get a third image in the centre. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure to be honest, I can see the image either way, diverging my eyes (which is correct) or converging them (which is inverted depth wise). When I do it it comes out clear as day. Try and line up till you get the centre image, then you have to focus on it to get it to come out. Perhaps the instructions need a little work... Noodle snacks (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it even physically possible to 'diverge' your eyes significantly beyond looking straight ahead? I'm not capable of it anyway! As far as I know, anatomically we can only converge them, and it makes sense because in nature, when do we ever need to look beyond infinity? ;-) In any case, if you could diverge your eyes' line of sight, you would only end up with four images, with the two 'ghost' images on the outside of the two flowers, not on the inside. It just doesn't make sense to me. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I did manage to (briefly) get them in focus, but only by reducing the size of the image down significantly so that they took up perhaps 10-20% of my monitor (30" monitor that is) or about 15-20cm wide, at a distance of about 50cm. Even then, my eyes were focus hunting, struggling to keep it steady. And I just reduced it further to about 8cm wide and it was even easier and I could hold it comfortable. So from my experience, the smaller the image, the easier it is to see the stereogram. And also, you're right.I'm not crossing my eyes any more to see it, I'm just staring through it. I'm confused by the physics of it now though. It would be simple if I had a better sense of what my eyes are doing in objective terms. I'm assuming that they're still converging, although somewhere between the 'correct' convergence to see just the two images, and neutral (no convergence or divergence)? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)-
 * I think what happens is each eye gets pointed towards a different image, but both are in focus, hence fooling your brain into seeing the stereo image. It does take some practise though. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I can do either at any practical size, and it is anatomically possible (your eyes have to be able to look both left and right at times, so the muscles are there). I've added a flipped version which requires crossed eyes, try that. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I realise that it is anatomically possible for each eye to point in the respective directions separately, but I just don't know how possible it is for the eyes to both do it at the same time, for the same reason that it seems more difficult (more eye strain and uncomfortability) to cross both your eyes inward to the extreme than it is for you to simply look left or right to the extreme. I just assumed that there is some mechanism that links the muscles in each eye to stop you from looking divergently beyond parallel. I had a quick google search and found this though. I can do the convergent exercise easily, but I cannot complete the divergent exercise properly. If I stare beyond the two seals and balls, I can get them to move inwards towards each other slightly, but never enough for them to touch like the example shows. Can you? Maybe I have some sort of divergent viewing deficiency that I was never aware of until now. :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can do both the exercises quite easily. The new version I added only requires you to cross your eyes, so try that, I have a feeling it'd be easier for most people. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Easier to combine the two images to form a third, yes, but very difficult for me to focus properly on it when cross eyed. The instant my eyes cross inwards, they seem to become short sighted, but it doesn't have any effect if I close one eye and turn the other inwards. Very strange. I did find that if I reduce the size of the flipped image and look at it really closely (10cm from my face), I can focus on it. Anyway, we're throroughly off-topic now, but it would be interesting to see how others go! Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The third image formed, does it show something that the individual images don't show? For me, the third flower looked the same. You should have a disclaimer with this image though, it sure makes one's cry eyes water :( Muhammad (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is having any luck evidently, but the third image will appear in 3D when viewed correctly. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I didn't seem to have any problems to get the 3D, whether LR or RL. Just take your time (and practice a bit on a not to large version). Lycaon (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Original version is easier for me, but either works. Lycaon (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support After re-reading the above discussion, I got it to work, and I like it very much. I can see it in 3D!  Spencer T♦C 20:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Beatiful image and very innovative! Luca (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Can people please specify which version they find easier? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For me, they both work, but the flipped one comes to me easier.  Spencer T♦C 03:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I cant get it to work on either - at all :( --Fir0002 10:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion If people have trouble and get eyestrain from this, how about an anaglyph image, like this one? (It's a shot of my live steam locomotive in my workshop... ;-) You do need red and green (or red and blue) glasses, but Wikipedia already has an icon for that:  --Janke | Talk 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is though, an anaglyph and this image demonstrate different types of stereographs. I am not sure how to generate an anaglyph either Noodle snacks (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but I see no reason for promoting a 3D image that many (maybe even most) viewers cannot even see in 3D. With an anaglyph, you only need two pieces of colored plastic... ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that its a bit like opposing an image of a Sulphur-crested Cockatoo because its not a Major Mitchell's Cockatoo. The two image types are fundamentally different and are only related as types of stereogram. If this image were promoted there would still be "room" for a high quality anaglyph FP. I could probably try and generate an anaglyph image, but I don't have easy access to the glasses required. I don't think that some users being unable to "see" it has any bearing on the image's EV or any relation to the FP criteria in general. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Forget the anaglyph and the comparison, the gist in what I'm saying is I see no reason for promoting a 3D image that many (maybe even most) viewers cannot even see in 3D. No offense intended... --Janke | Talk 13:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Does anybody else get the feeling that people might be scared to cross their eyes long enough for the cross-eyed image to come into focus? Anyway, I Support both.  For me, the diverging image is easy to see at thumbnail, difficult at preview size, and impossible at full size.  The cross-eyed is easy at any size, but it takes me up to 2 minutes to get the image properly aligned at eye level and then to get it in focus. Chicago god (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please specify version preference everyone --Fir0002 10:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC) --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the flipped version easier. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support flipped and Comment -- Excellent image! I can see it perfectly and, if some people can't, too bad, I'm sure they can learn if they try hard enough. And hey, I don't believe anyone still believes in the "wind blowing in your eyes when they're crossed, will make you cross-eyed" kind of myth.  My comment is that it would be nicer to have a deeper DOF so that the whole image is in focus.  The reason for this is that, when you get the image right, you can look at different parts of the picture.  In real life, when you look at the back of the picture, it should come into focus, right? Luca (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, a stereo focus stack with one camera is fairly ambitious though. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Flipped, see my comments above.  Spencer MerryChristmas! 17:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)