Talk:941: Depth Perception
Somebody needs to try this. Couldn't be that hard. 18.104.22.168 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Those must have been some tall goalposts if his point of view is above the clouds! -- mwburden 22.214.171.124 13:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, the cameras should be mounted on servos so that when the phone is moved or tilted the cameras can follow, so your viewpoint isn't fixed in one direction. -- mwburden 126.96.36.199 13:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- That wouldn't work. The entire football field would have to swivel, or else he'd get some wicked image shearing... 188.8.131.52 01:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- actually, it might be possible to correct for that, using bipolar geometry. Essentially, you can derive a 3d model from 2 images from different view points. Here is a (very geeky) demontration of what can be done. Watch the end, where they construct a fly-around video from two images of the opera house in sidney. -- 184.108.40.206 21:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting link, thanks, but I don't think the video was generated from only 2 images, there isn't enough information. If you select "Download the Opera House sequence" you can download the original 43 photographs used. 220.127.116.11 14:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're right. But of course you wouldn't need a 90-degree flyby for this. 18.104.22.168 16:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
An updated solution would be to put the two stabilised cameras on quadracopters which are coded to remain a set distance apart. When you want to look left/right it would take a while for the pair of drones to rotate around their centre point but not too long..... Then you could also get a perspective from the height of a giant (drones can go to any height) and with their degree of parallax (from whatever value of height and eye spacing you choose). 22.214.171.124 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- This is a very cool project indeed! Some hardcore image stabilizing software would be required too, since you would get nauseous if the two images weren't perfectly aligned at all times. But this setup is the only one I could think of that would enable you to perceive the view from the last frame. Mumiemonstret (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Look at this in stereo mode: http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar and cross your eyes so you see three images, then hold your hands up so you only see the one, then... I forget...
I used to do that all the time at one time ... until I got a l...ot of things different to do..
Stereo aerial pairs of clouds do exist see the Google search: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stereoscopic+aerial+photos+clouds 126.96.36.199 07:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Or you could ride in an airplane. Or stand on a mountain. 188.8.131.52 19:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- That would defeat the point entirely. The distance between the two viewpoints is what provides the increased perspective, not the height of the observer. 184.108.40.206 21:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Likely the reason the right image is shown on the left and vise versa is that there are two ways to fuse stereo images. Either Walleyed, right-to-rght, or Crosseyed, right-to-left. Doing it the wrong way may result in concave faces and other aberrations. 220.127.116.11 15:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Clouds are fractal, small ones up close look the same as big ones far away. So I don't think this would look as spectacular as imagined.