Very very nice! I seem to be losing the focus on BGG after a while though... First, these are faintly visible yet 'deteroriate' after a minute. But loved it, how did you create it anyway?
Yeah, I think the focus distraction on the letters is because they are pretty thin compared to the pattern width and complexity, so it's much easier for the eyes to slip. If the tiles were a little noiser (i.e. less areas of relatively flat green) they might be easier to hold onto.
As for making it.... errr, it wouldn't be at all sad to say that I wrote my own computer program to generate it, right? Creating a height map to include the things hidden in the picture was simple - they're not complex items to draw in black and white. And to create the tiles, I must admit I used this image as a reference point instead of scanning in my own Carc. tiles:
Then it was just a case of creating a repeating pattern and trying a whole bunch of displacements in order to try and minimise the amount of "blotched brown" that occurred through the algorithm's computation. I know there's still some stand-alone hoops down in the bottom right, but that's much better than a lot of the other tile placements I tried, and I figured it didn't look too ugly.
Fantastic! Can you make any others, like for other games? Or is your program tied into these tiles specifically?
No, not tied to these tiles at all. I was actually considering making others, but I thought I'd wait and see if people liked this one first. Didn't want to throw a load of content up if no-one was really interested in it. What other games were you thinking of?
Heheh. Thanks. What kind of special orders? Unfortunately, I'm not a 3D artist, so creating complex height maps is a bit out of my league, but I'd be willing to give things a go. It'd only be in my spare time though, and I don't seem to have as much of that as I'd like currently.
Dang it, I have never in my entire life been able to see one of these things!!! I'll pay GG for anyone who can teach me how to do it (and bear in mind that none of the "standard" methods have ever worked for me, so don't bother repeating those....)
Dang it, I have never in my entire life been able to see one of these things!!! I'll pay GG for anyone who can teach me how to do it (and bear in mind that none of the "standard" methods have ever worked for me, so don't bother repeating those....)
I don't know if this is a "standard" method, Brad, but what I do is get close enough to the image so that there's not a lot in your peripheral vision, then try and look "through" the image; to a point beyond the actual screen (or poster, or whatever). Then when the actual image starts to "overlap" itself, the hidden thing will just pop out at you. (...or not, if you've never been able to see it).
Yes, smitty's guide is pretty much what I do. Sometimes it's just worth focusing on getting one tiny portion of the image focused, then the rest of the image falls along with it. For example, take the row of little 'football' cities about a third of the way down in my picture above. In the image, they sit side by side like this:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
If you then imagine focusing on something behind your monitor, or imagine focusing on a reflection in the monitor, the image will seem to blur. Do this carefully and the cities will seem to blur towards each other, like this:
( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )
When two are 'blurred' totally on top of each other, try and then keep them together like that but sharpen your focus on them as if they're actually the same city now. If you're lucky, they'll snap into focus and it'll be like you're seeing the image slightly recessed behind the screen. It might take some practice, and to start with moving your eyes much beyond there will make you lose your focus, but if you're slow you may be able to scan around the image and see what's hidden inside.
Those are basically the "standard" methods I've always heard spoken of: put your nose right up to the picture, unfocus your eyes, and then move back slowly, and/or try to look "through" the picture. My vision always just de-focuses completely and then I can't see anything but a blur. On this one, I was actually able to get some "depth" to the field of green a little, and it almost seems like there could be something there, but as soon as my eyes twitch even the smallest bit, it's gone. (I've also tried crossing my eyes, which I'm told does the reverse ["indents" the image instead of popping it out], but I've never had any luck with that method at all....)
I've always wondered if it has something to do with the fact that my vision is *so* poor (I think my prescription is -7.5), or just that I'm wearing contact lenses, or something like that. I've also wondered if it's something to do with the fact that I'm so conscious all the time of my vision (because it's so poor without correction), that I just can't let my eyes truly relax..... But I've talked to plenty of other people who say they've never been able to do it, so I think it's possible there's just a percentage of people who don't have the right eye measurements or something....
Ah, well, sorry I couldn't help there. You could be right in why you can't see them. I know there's several medical conditions that can make the process almost impossible to achieve. However, I'm not an optometrist or doctor, so I can't really say much more than that. However, believe me, you're not missing anything great in this instance.
This is way impressive! Where do you find the alogrithm to code it?
Thanks. To be honest, I didn't really find it anywhere. I've a couple of stereogram books at home and after looking at a few of those, and a lot of thought about how the stereoscopic effect fundamentally works, I just wrote it from the ground up based on those principles. Took a little bit of trial and error as I also wanted to incorporate bilinear filtering from the original tile images when they got stretched in the algorithm, but it seems to work. Even if it isn't the fastest thing in the world.
No, not tied to these tiles at all. I was actually considering making others, but I thought I'd wait and see if people liked this one first. Didn't want to throw a load of content up if no-one was really interested in it. What other games were you thinking of?
Well, tile games and card games would work best, right? How about Ra and Coloretto? Those seem like naturals. Race for the Galaxy would be really cool if you could get it to work. Maybe also Jungle Speed, Vikings and Goa.
Dang it, I have never in my entire life been able to see one of these things!!! I'll pay GG for anyone who can teach me how to do it (and bear in mind that none of the "standard" methods have ever worked for me, so don't bother repeating those....)
Did you get your chip installed yet? It sounds like you haven't had it installed yet. Maybe yours is busted.
Go shave you your head and get a new chip put in then come back and I can teach you how to do it.
The biggest reason that people can't see magic eyes is that their eyes are not balanced. Magic Eye relies on both eyes seeing the exact same. If you have one eye weaker than the other, you will probably not ever see these. I used to be able to see them easily, now I'm out of luck forever.
Dang it, I have never in my entire life been able to see one of these things!!! I'll pay GG for anyone who can teach me how to do it (and bear in mind that none of the "standard" methods have ever worked for me, so don't bother repeating those....)
For me, it's "Take my glasses off!" Something in the lens corrects out the 3-d stuff.
It took me awhile to get this image. Interestingly, there seem to be two focal points that work. The first one I found, there were no letters, but there were three copies of the other subject matter, with a smaller one standing in front of the other two. Three layers in that image instead the two in the "real" image.
Dang it, I have never in my entire life been able to see one of these things!!! I'll pay GG for anyone who can teach me how to do it (and bear in mind that none of the "standard" methods have ever worked for me, so don't bother repeating those....)
One trick that has worked for me is using a small mirror. If you hold a tiny mirror in the center of the image, and try to look at the reflection of your eye in it, your eyes should be focused at the proper distance to see the image.
I can always get my eyes to see the 3D-ness of these things, but have a hard time figuring out what the 3D objects actually are. I figured out the top part pretty quickly, but couldn't tell what the three "blobs" on the bottom were until checking out the comments!
Is there a nice guy who wants to tell me what I was supposed to see here? I'm colorblind and this prevents me from seeing anything in these magic pictures.
Is there a nice guy who wants to tell me what I was supposed to see here? I'm colorblind and this prevents me from seeing anything in these magic pictures.
Ponton, there is no color dependency in this picture - stereo fusion for these types of pictures is dependent on the pattern features in the image, not the colors. In other words, if your eyes are healthy otherwise, you ought to be able to see the effect. You can confirm this by converting the image to B&W/monochrome - the effect works the same.
The most significant factor is that you have 'normal' binocular vision, ie., you can see out of both eyes and that the muscles responsible for ocular vergence are generally healthy. People with a diagnosed strabismus (squint) will have problems, and those with partial blindness in one eye. (And if you only have one functioning eye, then sorry - you will never be able to get these!). Lots of 'normal' folks have difficulty fusing these types of stereograms because they do require the eyes to do slightly 'unnatural' things. I believe it also gets harder as your eyes get older...!
Smitty, Ncik and tempus42 have described above how to do it. The technique that I use is to look at the image, but try to focus at an imaginary point well behind and beyond the distance to your screen. Give yourself at least a good 20-30s, but rest your eyes after a minute of so if you don't "get it". You should eventually sense the image slowly going out of focus, and some of the vertical lines very slightly and slowly moving left and/or right. When this starts to happen, bare with it - you're almost there...! Just let those vertical lines keep sliding left and right, and eventually the new image should just "click in". When this happens, give it a few more seconds for your eyes and your brain to adjust to the new image. Once you get used to it, it gradually gets easier to repeat the technique; ie., you can train yourself to do these quicker. (Disclaimer - rest your eyes when it gets uncomfortable. You shouldn't over-do it.)
I always thought this has to do with colors as most such pictures are red and green. I never thought that my left eye might be the reason I can't see the effect: my left eye is partially blind (from birth).
If someone please could send me a geekmail with a description of what I was supposed to see, I'd be very grateful.
I always thought this has to do with colors as most such pictures are red and green.
There are at least five types of stereogram methods. Red-green differential lenses are just one of them. The others include separate (prismatic) lenses, polarised lenses, lenticular, and the autostereogram/vergence method. This image is an example of the latter type (and not the red-green type).
Quote:
I never thought that my left eye might be the reason I can't see the effect: my left eye is partially blind (from birth).
Well, I'm not a medical doctor or optometrist either, but from your description I'd be 99.99% confident that this is the reason that you can't fuse the image. Unfortuantely, I suspect you won't be able to view images of the other types of stereograms either, which all depend on binocular vision. (Exceptions: So-called "wiggle-grams" and lenticular images, neither of which depend on binocular vision. Google them or wikipedia if you can be bothered. The former can be quite cool; the latter are arguably not a true 3d technique; a novelty that appeals to 6-year-olds, but then only for a minute or so...)
Quote:
If someone please could send me a geekmail with a description of what I was supposed to see, I'd be very grateful.
I don't really get why you need to know so badly -- it's not exactly the Da Vinci Code or a map to El Dorado! But I guess it's that irresistible human drive to be in on the conspiracy that apparently everybody else shares... OK then, that's enough with the lectures...
Posted Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:25 pm
