Wikipedia:Peer review/Autostereogram/archive1

Autostereogram
This is a self-nomination. I am requesting a peer review to prepare this document for Featured Article nomination. I was surprised to find little information on autostereograms in wikipedia when I was writing a program to produce Magic Eye pictures. So I promised myself to come back and significantly expand the existing Autostereogram article. As you probably know, wikipedia editing can be addictive. Before I knew, I had turned this article into a (hopefully) comprehensive review of autostereogram theories and a user-guide on techniques in 'seeing' these pictures. Fred Hsu 03:27, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

RJH

 * The page has a lot of images. Unfortunately, on my browser at least, some of the images come out squashed or overlapping down near the "Random dot autostereogram" section. (I'm using IE 5 at the moment). &mdash; RJH 04:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. I worked on this article with full-sized window at 1024x768 screen resolution.  I made the window smaller in width and observed that you described.  I fixed a few places where this could happen by shrinking/moving images and by adding more text. Fred Hsu 02:48, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jan van Male

 * I liked reading the article. Although I appear to be unlucky in seeing these (I've tried before), I found your explanation of the phenomenon clear. So now I know exactly what I am missing. Some questions that may be addressed in future revisions:
 * These images are purely made for recreational purposes?
 * Are there any limits on the size of the depicted objects?
 * The first image of the page 'Stereogram_Tut_Shark.png' does not appear to be a random dot autostereogram as is written in the caption. Or have I not understood the article?
 * I think the formatting of the article in sections/paragraphs can be done better. Try to make them smaller. There's plenty of discussion of how the eyes see `normal' 3D throughout the article. Does this warrant a separate section (or even article)?
 * Regarding your intention to make this a Featured Article: I believe that it may be too technical for that. Compared to other featured articles, this article focuses very much on the `how' instead of the `what'. Since I'm rather new here take this for what it's worth. Whatever happens: I enjoyed reading it!
 * Jan van Male 23:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Your suggestions make a lot of sense. I'll try to address these problems this weekend.
 * Recreational: some people claim autostereograms actually help correct eye problems (assuming that you are using wall-eyed viewing). I think this may be true, but I haven't yet come across real evidence/literature on this.  The two-image version (those viewed under stereoscope) actually helped the military discover camouflaged ground vehicles.  But... err... yeah, they are mainly for recreation.
 * Size: I am not sure what you mean by size. Is it the overal size of the hidden 3D image (that is, the physical dimension of the stereogram - A4, legal, poster size, etc.)?  Do you mean the physical distance between the repeating patterns?  These all depend on the viewing distance.  I was able to see the autostereograms in this article projected on a 12-foot screen, but it required extreme eye divergence.  It took me quite a while to master that.  Another reviewer in the article discussion page also asked about this.  I think I'll add a subsection on this.
 * First image: I'll replace it with the one with colored random dots. It is quite unfortunate that no one (to my limited knowledge) has come up with a different name to describe autostereograms where highly packed patterns are used instead of random-dots.  As far as I know, they are all called random-dot autostereogram.  I'll try to clarify this some more in the article and in the Terminology section. (done - 3/21/2005)
 * Formating: this issue has been bothering me since day one. The problem is the sheer number of images in this article compared to the amount of text.  Either I need to make thumb images even smaller, or write some more.  I left a few autostereograms at 600-pixels wide, so people don't need to click on each one to see them.  But worst comes to worst, I can make them all 150-pixels wide. (I did my best to format them - 3/21/2005)
 * How The Brain Sees 3D: yeah, maybe this can be an article of its own. Let me think...
 * OK. I moved some stuff out to Eye and Binocular vision. Fred Hsu 04:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Featured Article: I don't like the way phrases such as "the following image shows" keep coming up throughout the article. It's a bit hard to talk about 'What' without talking about 'How'.  I have cooled down a little in the past few days.  Featured Article or not, I still would like to improved it to make it more readable to the average reader.
 * Fred Hsu 02:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Mgm

 * I'd like to see a bit more wikification and shortening of section titles, but over all it looks great. Mgm|(talk) 12:11, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've shortened one section title. I'll probably move how-the-eye-sees and convergence sections out as suggested by Jan van Male, at which point I'll fix the section titles.  As for wikification, I don't know how to properly arrange a table of images using wiki syntax :( Fred Hsu 04:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ponder

 * Great work, Freddie. I love what you've done with the article. Some of those images look very familiar somehow; perhaps a source image or two could be used in another article... :) Your proposed article "How The Brain Sees 3D" already exists at Binocular vision, so you don't have to write it from scratch, just add your improvements. -- Ponder 16:23, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ponder! I moved some stuff out to Eye and Binocular vision. Fred Hsu 04:35, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)