ANNOUNCEMENT 3 - how to see 3d in mono *********************************** TIPS AND HINTS - HINT HINT 3D *********************************** - reference: (http://missingmass.net/stereo.htm) DEAR PERSON How would you like to see your picture in stereo. It is this one, a .gif from an internet site. Even though mono, it is a stereo picture. This I discovered by chance in 1996, I think the discovery that any mono picture or image contains genuine 3D content is one of the simple boons of the century. Physicists and sciences have denied any stereo 3D can exist in an image without a binnocular stereo pair but this is wrong, you only have to know how to best bring out a mono picture's stereo to see it, as witness your own image in 3D with me doing nothing except presenting it onscreen correctly with acquired know-how as to exactly how to get the best 3d quickly. Notice how your mono picture of yourself is actually two identical images presented side by side on the screen, a slight compaction of width of one, a slight expansion of height of the other no more than .02% of realsize, and the height all increased by about 10 points and stereo is obvious when the two side by side images are focused together by eyesight. Perhaps previous track records suffice as to how an individual outside of academica can come across such a find. My name is Greydon Moore, a former associate of FM radio CHQM circ. the latter 60's. Several recordings by me were for awhile being played often nightly on radio CHQM, CJOH, and other top stations featuring futuristic poetries and prophetic inclines. My lattest seige is at the keyboard putting together by myself what is now the largest privately administered astronomy site in the world, with 1000's of images and over 200 subject studies, most all of it original in new discoveries or interpretations as to what the astronomy images really contain and are really revealing to us, most all outside of professional astronomy current planes of regressive peer fear limitations and chronic uncertainties about budget monies and grants, with many very hard sincere workers doing their best to try and work through a professional realm rife with pitfalls and short circuits. http://www.visitastronomy.com ANNOUNCEMENT I have discovered something very important about stereo. Any single (mono) photo has genuine stereo in it. Proof is in the real image of Raoul the Houseboy, and the below image of the Subaru Telescope. Both are genuinely stereoscopic and both are in a single (mono) photo. How is this possible! Picture a photo of the Moon, when turned upside down the crators turn into buttons (the innies turn into outies). How does this happen. Take care. Once you start to think about it the answer is not the pat long standing answer that it 'is an optical llusion' Raoul the Houseboy is here: http://www.visitastronomy.com/seeme.htm *********************** OPTICAL ILLUSIONS *********************** A camera in a space shuttle passing over the Moon from north to south, takes a single mono single photo of the Moon, facing south. The crator in front of them the astronaughts see is a 'crator', because it is being seen in 'binoccular stereo' (seen with both eyes in 3D). The same astronaughts heading North and facing the same crator in front of them (to the north) see the same crator in 3D, because also, of binoccular vision. Now, make the astronaughts snapshot a picture facing south from the north, of the crator, and it will be correct when later viewed with the photo lying on a coffee table. Have the astronaughts take a picture of the same crator again, facing north from the south, and again they will see the crator as a crator, when the photo lays on a coffee table. But, turn either photo upside down, and the crator in either photo will instantly transform from an innie to an outie. How is this possible. The answer in complex, not simple. First, in nature of the two photographs, the 3 dimensional topology of the crator on the Moon has been physically transformed into 2 dimensional (flat) photographs. A second change is that when the astronaughts up there are viewing the crator from either direction (north or south) in low orbit, the image they see is constantly being refreshed by incident light rays striking the crator from all angles, and stiking their eyes (entering their pupils) also from all angles, all angles and all light rays carrying information about the crator, which is constantly being changed in real time. That is, the image coming into the pupils is fluid in time. But, on the instant of the snapshot of the photo all that is coming into the camera (a single pupil of an eye) is at one instant locked in time. Now, this is not a perfect lock, since, during the part of a second (or seconds) in which the image is being shot, some real-time information is flooding into the camera, in other words a flux of incoming photon-informants comes into the camera from all angles, after striking and reflecting off the crator at all angles. In other words the image captured on film has multiple partide content. In a sense, a very real, very suble, hologram has just been stored on film, the hologram containing all that is the 3 dimensional (stereo) content about that crator. This means that rays of light from the upper left corner of the crator strike the lower right corner of the film, and visa versa, the image being created in the camera is not rays travelling strictly point source to point source, as binnocular stereo theory upholds as the only way for an image to be stored in a camera. Due to the fact that the image is data locked, (only a brief flux from the image has been registered in the camera's film), the exact angle at which the image was shot becomes critical. When the image is later turned upside down, incident light reflections and refractions from the new environment striking the crator image do not match with the incident light which was illuminating the crator and also streaming into the camera pupil from all angles. This mis-match (when the image is turned upside down) accounts from the apparent 'optical illusion', where the crator's image turns from an innie into an outie. In other words, the mono photo is basically assymetric in two venues, the angles from the crator to the film, and angles from illuminating source striking the crator and incidentally (from the light source) also entering the camera. When the resulting photo is turned upsidedown, these two angle sources become out of phase rather than in phase. The out of phase view is incorrect, the crator has turned from an innie into an outie. Just having this above insight in mind, is enough to give cause to understand that STEREO in a MONO photo EXISTS. The above 'crator insight' provides grounds for assuming physics which can handle genuine STEREO in a MONO photo. I personally do not have the foxes in the lobes which can generate and handle fundamental physics equations which spell out the phenomena(s) at length, as would have, say, Issac Newton have spelled out at length in equations such phenomena had he come across it. I wish I had the lobes but do not. Instead, I cop out with a plea associated with Scottish Researcher Micheal Farady who did not have the lobes to spell out complex equations and mathematics, but wrote out his ideas well enough and clearly enough that others were able to read, understand, duplicate, and confirm. Go to this, for more about how the illusions happen - Greydon Moore http://www.visitastronomy.com/3d-optic.htm *********************************** TIPS AND HINTS - HINT HINT *********************************** Tired of trying to teach yourself astronomy by online lessons that cost money? Treat yourself to low cost do-it-yourself learning in the fast lanes you do at home in your own computer. Guaranteed you will learn more about what counts in galaxies, nebulas, and the whole solar system, than any where else, yes, alone at home, just you and your computer and our online packages, what else is there in astronomy today than how much and how much it costs and how much we can make from y o u r interest. Yes, these are the questions that count, says the thing dotting the last i, crossing the last t, getting the last link to go online selling astronomy to little kids parents and old people who don't want to be left out of the rush to be galaxy coherent according to those who want to make the most money from your interest and intuitives about curiousity in the greater nature of things, sorry the money is misspent there is nothing onlines can teach you about where you are going into the rearing already visible future of planet translation. Your one-stop top way to learn. Your eye through the world to the universe. Look direct to - visitastronomy.com - Nerds, vorps, dweebs, eggnogs, propellor heads, even thin brainers can profit by this no brainer approach to learning astronomy in the new age. No academic diarrhia. The name Einstein isn't mentioned hardly once and certainly no prayers to Saint Einstein's picture on the wall. You won't need a slide rule or ephemeris it isn't that kind of teaching. If you want to know where missing mass is, want to see arms made of galaxies, want to know how arms writhe and behave in 3D, want to be able to answer many astronomy questions the moment a pro posts a new picture that asks the question, prepare yourself the easy way. No risk, no failures, no exams. It is entirely up to you to make the most of a golden age opportunity. Use no money. Spare any expense. What you can really know is out there when you look for it online and self confident that someone elses drivel describing a puky picture is what it seems, puky, not something that you are missing because the adjectives seem to describe a photo of a galaxy so real, so bright, so magnificent it is hanging in space right in your room over your computer but isn't it is a puky little dim blurred image in computer midscreen and the person a pro who described it is hallucinating. INSTEAD THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES TO WHET INFORMATION SEEKING Well, here we go, a whole new kettle of ask. Yet another Andromeda image with R I L L S this one a Hubble image no less, the rills barely making it into view because Hubble's are not usually set for wide range all-color captures, nevertheless coaxing and tweeking the knobs of the image editor until they smoked has coaxed some visible moire into view on the right side of our big friend, exactly where moire in the other film photo moire are seen. Neato, Hubble, Andromeda has gravity waves Even though this old ground based DSS photo of NGC 2440 looks like the bottom of a ladies purse compared to a smashing Hubble view or one from an ESO today, it still has enough perfume to tell us many strange things about motions and angular momentums and contructions of galaxies even about a center pole through the core on axis at right angles to the longtitudinal expanse of the galactic extended main shaft Dusty galaxy Circinus has a blaring hornblower off the end of its core notwithstanding that it is six sided the horn is from a principle which dominated creation before changes set in Re: Beta Peg, Arcturus Yes shouts (hands rubbing gleefully together) the gold boy wins again. The Pleiades and Merope are not the only stars with mottling peppering their diaphanous Moon Cloud drifts. This means that image plate flaws coming from morning dew sprinkled on the world's best telescope lenses is not the cause of mottling. Mix-mastered sundry matter and prototype star forming material are the mottles. The question did the chicken or the egg come first is again foremost when seeing the mottles. Is this the aftermath of another star torn apart by the turbines of gravitational tides getting too close to comfort the fierce tidal pools intermixing by the other two stars. Or is this diaphanous drifts collected in deep space along the star-pair's travels and is being intermixed by the twin star's constantly changing tidal pools into hot and cold mixtures of seething cross polarities and clusters of opposite charges, like squirrels being tumbled in a clothes dryer chewing the clothes into similar sized gobs as the squirrels tumble (hot - squirrels, cold - your clothes). Two giant close neighbored stars with the exotic names R Cononae Australis and TY Cononae Australis are well peppered with mottles spotting the world of their realms of existence. In the much higher DPI of a good graphics editor, mottling is not so much seen. Instead is seen that the two stars are in a deep density of miscellaneus surrounding deep space matter. In fact, the two stars turn out to be none other than these already seen in an ESO image, in fact the mysterious studebaker door handle is right there in the lower trailing edge of the sundry matter mass. See door handle at: - (visitastronomy.com/missingmas1.htm#studebaker) - ( -finished- ) greydie@look.com *********************************** WHEN 3D IN MONO IS FIRST DISCOVERED THESE COMMENTS ARE THE FIRST RECORD *********************************** ------------------------------------------comments NOV 10-11/96 8:30 PM VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO IS A FACT ALREADY AT HAND FROM A single PHOTOGRAPH OR PICTURE SOURCE. Wait till you see NGC 5850, on page 28 of the October 96 issue of Astronomy Magazine. In the center is a galaxy seen nearly on edge, surrounded by a collar of dense stellar matter as if it has been placed like an open flue in the center of a short length of stove pipe, with other flex collar sheet strips of matter arcing out into space. The orientation is from behind lower left to out front toward upper right and tilted slightly up and over to the right like the stubby case of a small refractor telescope, to create a piece of cosmic jewellry a god could wear as a necklace. It is everthing but flat and delicately whimsy. The photo is in black and white so prism chromatics can't occur in the 3-D imaging. As a matter of fact that doesn't seem to be a galaxy in the middle, more the center core, with huge spiraling sheets in vortex comprising the outer bound as if most of the galaxy's matter has been driven well away from the core and is vortexing in dense wall sheets in steep rearward angles. That spiral you see is a long open tube, with the center core and diffuse ellipse definately suspended like a christmas tree orniment in the middle. A question immediately comes to mind: is the central core the motor actually driving this stupendous three dimensional artifact. Don't forget, any single star that might be seen in it if possible, is a light year or more away from its nearest neighbor. Concider the SIZE of that mighty object, and the POWER of its mighty motor, whatever the motor happens to be able to create such a dazzling jewel of forces in god's eye. There is seen, vaguely, a thin disk like the rings of Saturn around the central globe. This, the above, is what is seen plain as day in 3-D virtual stereo looking at that magazine picture with a single 5 inch magnifying glass, the glass lens itself focused at a distance of about 4 or 5 times further away than is normal for such a lens. Another instant see of interest, just for the heck of it, is a samll photo of a couple of dozen stars on Page 97 of the September 1993 issue of Astronomy Magazine, with also a string of 6 tiny stars descending downward. The star at the hook, though not the biggest, is the closest to Earth, told by eyesight in VIRTUAL STEREO 3-D. The photo is also black and white with slight blue around the bigger stars. In this photo, there are also tiny dots closer to Earth than larger, meaning 3-D virtual stereo at home correctly indicates the layout of surrounding space in regard to real distances to stars, which are closer - which are farther. On Page 103 of that 1993 issue is an Edwin Hubble photo of a spiral galaxy, this has a denser main disk and two thin arms spiralling out on opposite sides. The photo is very small and in back and white. Nevertheless, in VIRTUAL 3-D there is seen a central disk spinning as expected, and the two thin arms are exactly as if a frisby is flipping like a fireplace flue around a horizontal axis, so that water is thowing off from opposite edges arcing through the air. The two small arms are vertical and are exactly at right angles to the main disk. There is also a slight lateral rotation too, counter clockwise, because the thick arm om the left edge is actually curving up into outer space above the galaxy, suggesting the galaxy plane is rotating downward. Oh by the way, tiny black rifts on the surface of Mars turn out, many of them, to be deep plunging narrow pits of chasm shape plunging deep into the surface. They are not just little slight sculpts like America's Grand Canyon if seen from space. These deep pits in chasm form look like wide deep fracture zones exposed on the surface, or places where water poured into deep and mighty underground caverns, just to indulge in a moment of excesses in speculation, but that is the way some of the pits look. Rather, they are probably deep lake beds such as some on Earth. ------------------------------------------comments NOV 11/96 2:40 PM This just hot off the research press: AH HAH! we are back to criss cross. A criss cross symmetry principle reported further below near the start of research, was later reported to be bogus. The original cross cross report seemed to suggest that the left hand image of a duo two image pair of indentical original photos, of dissimilar sizes, switched places in the view of 3-D VIRTUAL STEREO. This is not the case and the phenomena was abandoned, declared as bogus. It has just re-appeared, slightly modified. Regards re-discovered optical criss-cross symmetry: Since duo photos used to see the symmetry are of a single original, inherent stereoscopicness is thought impossible. Not so, in fact it exists and is easy for anyone to avail without other equipment except simple household hardware common to all. THE CRISS CROSS SYMMETRY PRINCIPLE The criss-cross optical symmetry is a principle by which a left hand, and right hand image, switch places, but only at center stage. With the left eye closed the original left eye image is seen directly in front in center stage directly under the open right eye. And visa versa, with the right eye closed the right side image is directly in center stage in view by the left eye. Normally the left side image and right side image are where they are in normal binoccular vision regardless of whether one eye is closed. The effect is kind of canny, as opposed to uncanny. Uncanny implies no reason. Canny implies total reason because its source is fundamental in Reality. Left/right symmetry switches in certain phenomenas come instantly to mind. It could be a case of 'virtual' focusing of energies in which two images recombine to form a third. Front/back reversal does not seem involving flat plane original images, each single image viewed under virtual single eye seems face up. Left side color is still left side. Image reversal flipping front to back does not simultaneously occur. In gist, here is the symmetry. Two similar pictures of dissimilar size made from a single mono photograph are laying side by side, a left picture on the left, a right picture on the right. When focused in the view of 3-D virtual stereo, a third picture immerges in the middle, being the two pictures superimposed to combine as one. When either eye is closed, the right eye sees the left image in non-stereo at center stage, the left eye sees the right image in non-stereo at center stage. Hence the criss-cross concept: a transportation left to right in original image, ties directly with a transposition right to left in single eye view. Two fundamental mechanics work to reveal the criss cross principle: Left eye/right eye, and right/left image transportation, both due to initial stereo focus in virtual 3-D. More about criss-cross is revealed in light of the above new information, elsewhere below in more than one area of the text. --------------------------------------------------------------- SO, WHAT IS VIRTUAL STEREO 3-D WORKING LIKE A FACT ALREADY AT HAND USING NOTHING BUT single PHOTOGRAPH OR PICTURE SOURCES --------------------------------------------------------------- This is a long file. Details in tests and discoveries go back to the beginning, in regressive time order, to the beginning, on NOV 5, 1996. Key words and buzz terms used in the immediate passages following below are not defined but are clearly introduced in text further back in time in stages as developements took place one by one and were recorded in progressive entries further below in this file. All of the information is here, just listed in backward order. The whole saga began with the expected discovery that two small identical photographs (of a sound experiment in a living room) laid side by side on a computer screen, each sized slightly different than the other horizontally vrs vertically, could be made to superimpose by overfocus, such that the living room turned into a 3 dimensional scene. Many thoughts later, and tests too numerous to count, in a five day period, have resulted in this document. It is too much of an editing and new-write job to start over again with a new file starting to describe the end conclusions at the top of the text. Too much information is involved. So, a backward time order it is, presented exactly as written passage by passage over several days. This is not a laboratory report, essay, or thesis type presentation. It is raw thought, warts and all. -------------------------------------------subnotes NOV 10/96 11 AM WHAT TECHNIQUE GIVES THE BEST VIRTUAL STEREO 3-D Best 3-D VIRUTAL STEREO seems to be gained by a single picture viewed with two giant magnifying glasses of 5 inch diameter each to view within a lenticular window formed in the lens closest to the 'virtual' image, formed by on overfocusing of the eyes as the two lens are pulled back away from the single photo and struggle maintains constant focus in both lenses simultaneously without the image splitting apart (starting to separate) into overlap, that is to say, plain ordinary double vision. A test was conducted using two dissimilar sized Xerox color copies of a small highly detailed snapshot looking down upon and out along a panaramic view of a section of the Great Wall of China, with small people in the foreground on large stone steps comprising the Wall in the foreground at the bottom of the photo, with the camera person probably standing on one of the giant steps. The camera angle features large steps in the front foreground of the photo. The photo has been reproduced on the glossy back cover of at least two recent issues of EARTH magazine. The tests reviewed two focusing means upon just a single copy of the photo, and two more focusing means upon the two photos laid side by side and brought together as one by overfocusing, in which case a 'virtual' third image was forced to appear in the middle between the original two, hence the word 'virtual' 3-D. The two copies were of slightly different size each done by downscaling the copy of one, by 11 percent on the XEROX machine. And so, four different 'viewing techniques' were tested. PS.. if you are wearing bifocal eyeglasses do not try to view through the bifocal part of your eyeglasses the more you try the more of what you are trying to see becomes blurred. Just tilt your head correctly to get the real part of your glasses into use and the whole scene you are trying to resolve changes to sharp details in an instant, ready for focus in a VIRTUAL 3-D way. SINGLE PHOTO STEREO 1. A single photo, mounted on backing and supported upright in the jaws of a small swivel mount vice was the source image for the tests. A single photo was studied with one lens, and two. One lens produced noticable stereo effect due to the high resolution of PIXELS in this otherwise small photo, roughly 2 by 2 1/2 inches. (A touch of 3M adhesive spray kept such photos in place on the upright backing) Two lenses means two large magnifying glass lens one held over the other so that both eyes see together into the areas of both lenses stacked one over the other like looking along a visionary tube with both eyes seeing one binnocular view. 2. Better stereo resolution BY FAR was seen with two lenses and a lenticular vertical window formed in the lens nearest the photo. In this view, the ground cover coming to the base of the Wall on the Wall's left side is not solid ground at all, there is a precipice where green ground covered rock comes to an abrupt edge across a wide gap, down into which plunges the now seen as a bastian base of the Great Wall, obviously of very high height from base to top then the 2-D photo allows to be seen unaided in non-stereo view. Along the top of the Wall on the left hand side, along its whole length visible for perhaps a mile, are repeated garrison slots, except these, in VIRTUAL 3-D are clearly seen to be constructed perched out in space over the top of the high flat base Wall. It is similar in kind to Venician bridges which have stalls lining both sides and the stalls jut hodge podge out over the water. In the Great Wall photo the stalls jutting out are of course uniform in size the length of the wall in a gentle serpent downcurved far away actually seen at the top of the photo, the Wall now curves far forward and down toward the left in the 3-D picture to suddenly dissapear out of range, which happens to be right into the top left corner of the photo itself. TWO PHOTOS SUPERIMPOSED 3. In a third test case, two photos of dissimilar size were tried, both with single lens, and a double lensed lenticular window array. It seems that in all ways of looking, main stereo effects are cancelled when both lenses are used to look at two photos superimposed by overfocusing to create a 3rd new 'virtual' image in between. The duo photos came from the same single original photo. The best stereo from two dissimilar sized identical images is UNAIDED EYES overfocuseded (assisted by moving in right close to the two images until the two then cross over and become a virtual 3rd in the middle, then pulling back and keeping the overfocus in place (kind of hard on the eyes) and maximum distance between common details can be no more than 3 1/2 inches (the distance between human eyes). Except this is very hard to keep all parts of the picture in focus at once in the reluctantly glued out of focus eyeballs. A single lens also produces some stereo, but not nearly so much, it is hard to guage or judge distances, the stereo is minimal. 4. In the fourth case tried for a moment in this quick series of tests - a two-lens system - using the two copies of the same photo as before in test 3. This kind of array seems to cancel the potential stereo effect to the amount that no great stereo presence can be seen with any confidence. And, it is very hard to focus clearly, it is further hard to get the lensing distances right using two lenses with two dissimilar sized photos. In stark contrast, just a single lens over a single picture produces noticable stereo presence the moment the eyes are overfocused aided by moving the lens being held to out-of-range focus and holding tight to the real image in focal detail as one image. BEST OVERALL STEREO AND DETAILING Best by far stereo for judging distances and seeing fine details in stark clarity and seeing the whole picture in a single sustained view is with the two lens array, focused over a single photo. In fact new details not understood to exist become facts. In these tests, chromatic abberation was in obvious effect in the form of anything red (such as a jacket) worn by a few of the 13 humans easily identified as objects in the foreground and near distance on the Great Wall in China in the photo. When overfocusing is first gained, the red can be made to stand clear in float completely clear of its sources. But when the occulars are finely tuned to maximum stereo enhancement in the two-lens lenticular array, the red's chromatic abberation more or less vanishes and there is none. Interesting news since it means, at least in this test, that the potential of chromatic abberation is not a constant critical flaw, in fact it resolves itself to zero or nearly so when maximum stereo is achieved in the lenticular view window. However a proviso seems to be that an image viewed in the light of day with strong daylight coming in sideways from windows excites red chromatic abberation, not seen to any extent in the same photo in the subdued artificial light of nighttime. Some physics in optics has to be discussed about this cancellation of prism chromatics by people who know how to discuss optical physics. Incidentally, STEREO VIRTUAL IMAGIZING reveals an interesting piece of data otherwise not understood in the original 2-D flat single photo. There is another male person standing just off the right hand side of the Wall, who turns out to be the second largest figure in the picture since in the 2-D photo it looks like a scrubby thin tree or such farther off tight along the right outside of the Wall, but in VIRTUAL 3-D resolves in sharp details into a dark dressed human figure standing with hands in pocket on a small pinnacle just behind a small standup narrow shrub which turns out to be lifting up over the edge into view very close to the camera, and is not farther down along the depth narrowing Wall several hundred feet away. Instead the narrow brown standup shrub and human are very much in the picture's foreground tight against the outside right border of the photo's main image, the staired top of the Wall itself where the camera person took the shot. Extrapolate such detailing articulation resolving ambiguous objects into clear cut artifacts by VIRTUAL STEREO imagizing and realize how much is going to be seen as newly discovered details of construction and physics principles of astronomy and cosmology in large photos of celestial objects taken by telescopes such as the Hubble. Even faint distant objects will reveal characteristics previously unheard of. Have fun everybody. Almost the whole library of astronomic content will look different under the fine tuned sharpening of 3-D imagery so there will be plenty of surprises. The same is true for the catalogue of microscopic events photographed as events in single pictures, also electron microscopes. For instance, it already seems like some galaxies are not spinning disks but are stationary spheroidals. Picure the solar Sun stripped of all of its in between matter so just its mighty magnetic lines of force and other curving plunging ridges of might are laid naked and thus see a startionary sphere of huge slow motion turbulence, arcing and vortexing in to out, out to in to and from a super hot center area. Some galaxies already look like that in the new views of 3-D virtual stereo. The lurk of unseen stupendous black holes raises its eerie presence again in an entirely different outer phenomenal look, in these 3-D views. The question of missing mass becomes an academic question mark, how did the mystery begin in the first place. There is mass everywhere in teeming uncounted structural massives, seen in these new 3-D views of every kind of galaxy. Small drifts of obscuring dust turn into huge dense clouds floating well free of the surface of galactic areas, there is more mass in these giant banks then wisps can ever suggest, also adding to the final mass count. 3-D CUBE And finally, a quick test was done with a single copy of an art drawn 3-D CUBE AND SPHERE with a hole cut into the center and another cube inside. This is the bold colored image icon featuring stereo topics under NEW STEREO in the FARSTAR Home Page. The original art drawing and its size and color, (scanned as a 37k JPG file for use in FARSTAR displays), was used for quick external bench testing. Its original size is a radius of 1 3/4 inches. When mounted on upright backing in the tabletop vice, in a single lens view chromatic abberation was very much in the picture, blue and green separating the most in deeper recessed planes. The two lens system showed less abberating, with the round collar still inside the opening cut into the cube. SUDDEN SWITCHEROO And then an optical illusion abruptly occurred in further range focusing tests. The round collar suddenly became a vertical flat plane around the front of a jutting outer corner point of the cube, the smaller cube is now jutting forth from the center of the collar as the corner point of a whole cube intact, the corner point jutting straight out toward you in space in perfectly correct perspective, except the original hand drawn graphic art had entirely the opposite intent, a sculpted cavity into the cube, rather than a whole cube intact. The original was hand drawn and colored by an individual in Ottawa in 1982. What is learned at once is that 3-D VIRTUAL STEREO imagizing can be used to create completely new images from an original. -------------------------------------------------- That summarizes the positive results of four known VIRTUAL STEREO imaging arrays and their potentials. -------------------------------------------------- And finally, WHERE oh WHERE in a flat 2-D photo is the 3-D information being stored? In the shadows at the edges of all objects is the candidate that first comes to mind. But in photos of celestial objects with stars in the foreground, a tiny little star can be seen to be well behind a much larger nearby bright star so how can such a tiny dot store all of the PIXELS needed to further resolve its image into a long distance look deep into outer space, bearing in mind that the true appearance of the star is in fact smaller than the size of a single photographic grain used to make the image of the star comprising many grains in a factual blurr exaggerating the star's true size due to a continuous collecting of photons to excite more and more grains (pixels) into the picture. In this level of reasoning, shadowed PIXELLING at the edge of the object (tiny star) does not seem likely as a source holding its latent potential 3-D data, in view of a tiny pinpoint size of a star clearly far back in the stellar distance behind a closer nearby big white dot, in terms of human handled astromonic stellar views where the true distance to a star (in a scene peppered with a few or many stars) can't be told by looking at the photo straight off right away. The distance to the first closest nearby star can't be told, due to the long range focusing of the telescope. It (the distance) will also have to be known (for that telescope and photo) before inferences of true stereoscopic depth and distances can be made. But this may turn out to be a far superior method over red shifting analysis, since once the distance to a first star is estimated, the distance to all other stars in a stellar scene can be inferred directly by stereoscopic lengths once technology is developed to investigate and control stereo lengths generated from a 2-D photograph. SCATTERING ABBERATION Scattering abberation, has just come to mind as a possible source for 3-D. In giant out of range focusing, the normal scattering off the picture is intrinsically distorted, opening up with new angles and new peaks and valleys of photon light re-inforcement. Perhaps THERE is the stereo information, analogous to super high frequency in sonic waves that contain harmonic information that can cascade all the way down the line to effect bass waves. After all dark is a maximum cancellation and absorption of photons, white a minimum of same. Changing the 2-D characterists of those dark and light original ratios brings back to light the information originally passing scattering around and in absorb - reflect, irregardless of color absortion, the color prism absortion also being changed but in impure form hence separation as chromatic abberation, no longer so mysterious in terms of lack of standards for all such abberation the prism side unique to each object with certain standards (for instance red standing apart over blue) typical but not generic for a wide range of photon reflecting events. The prism remarks are made since standard idea is that short blue waves scatter sharper than long red waves however there is other cause in situations where blue floats above red, and green floats above blue and red in a single piece of flat original data when prism chromatics are evoked by extended lens focusing. PIXELS NOTE that 'Computer Generated' starry or celestial object images are not expected to have any natural stereo stored at all since the bottom line of these unnatural images are square computer pixels. Any original information is lost to electronics. False color dense square pixel images the same problem. NOTE also that the word 'pixel' has two meanings in this disclosure and report: original meaning are the squares that form images in computers: but also there is any means by which information is stored to hardcopy, for example photographic grains used to create a photograph, and printers tiny dot circles used to print the photo. The density of grains, and the number of dots per square inch, are measures of the amount of naturual stored information regards the original image as it existed before being photographed. WHERE IS THE 3-D STORED Is it possible that the photons stored in the grains (pixels) at an object's edges are POLARIZED even when stored in pixel grains. Hope that last remark does not blow my cover as an amateur who works at home on the kitchen table but is very descrete about conclusions. 10% physics is not acceptable here. Accuracy to form conclusions has to be around 1/10th of a percent and less in scientific deviation to produce an exclaim of enthusiasm. ========================================NOV 9/96 11:50 PM AN INTRO A number of very kinky things regards the creation and viewing of 3-D stereo images from single non-stereo pictures have turned up in the past four days, beginning Tuesday NOV 5th in the early evening, and ending this morning at 5:00 AM, NOV 9/96. Pictures include anything of any nature printed in magazines, or a daily newspaper, as well as photographic prints in both black and white and/or color for all scenes viewed. UNIVERSAL ORIENTATION All of the visual interpretations seen in Virtual 3-D were consistent irregardless of orientation of the original photo being studied - turn the picture upside down or sideways and all observed interpretational new features remained unchanged. One curiously significant fact in particular has turned up consistent in all photos or pictures of galaxies of any kind, in particular spiral galaxies, regardless of plane, orientation, or image size. A number of galaxy pictures were studied during the hours last night and every one of them produced a characteristic simply not known by astronomers. The characteristic was consistent in all photos both color, and black and white. The characteristic can be easily called 'turbulent hurricanes' like those that cross the Atlatnic Ocean and strike the east coast of America. More of this follows shortly below, because some galaxies are apparently spheroidal around a main disk not flat, following some different models proposed for different kinds of event horizons and shapes for black holes. RE: THE GALAXY IMAGES STUDIED These were images found in rapidly thumbing through a hodge podge of former issues of such as ASTRONOMY MAGAZINE, DISCOVER, EARTH, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, POPULAR MECHANICS, such mags hanging around the house gathering dust here or there instead of being pitched the moment reading was finished. 11 such magazines of the last half year had the right stuff in their pictures for the galaxy study. Only those which had the best pictures or revealed the most new information, are cited. Oh, I forgot to mention. Andromeda Galaxy has a soliton wave in it. Picture a flying carpet with a fold across its width leaned over to one side cammed from the middle. The kink is soliton and not beach wave in that it has a steeper onset to maximum height and a much more gradual decline. A flying carpet hitting a slight quick sudden headwind gives the picture of the kind of wave that results, exactly. The soliton wave in Andromeda is not very steep. However it is already seen clearly in any photo of that galaxy, color or black and white, but it has not been recognized in true nature because as of this moment Andromeda cannot be seen in stereo. Until now. Now it can and been looked at in VIRTUAL 3-D stereo. In any Andromeda picture or photograph, the center bluge is not even, slightly elongated the top blowing forward sort of blurred toward the right in that all Andromeda pictures seem to illustrate the galaxy with a standard left to right profile. Much speculation has abounded as to the cause of this slight bulge or elongation to the right of its central core mass, including a recent postulation that there is a second center alongside the other. This could be true. What is true is that the bulge is a wave, which 'extends' laterally straight across its width, exactly as if a carpet was kicked at one end and folds or buckles in the middle in the form of a soliton wave caused by fast accelaration at the back end at the kick, and a slow accelaration at the front end due to friction. The fold or buckle in Andromeda may not be that cause, but yes a flutter is moving slowly through. Certainly the wave is not big, as you would get from a buckled carpet, from if it was a flying carpet being pushed from the rear and hit by sudden slightly different wind velocity at the front leadedge causing a flutter to progress along in very slow motion. The bulging at the core center of Andromeda is clearly seen to be a wave cross the galaxy's width in a 3-D VIRTUAL STEREO view that is achieved at home at any time by simple means involving just a bit of practice to master. In other words, at this moment, the center of Andromeda is in fact NOT a symmetrical sphere, nor elliptic sphere like a pumpkin. It is solitonic in shape, Andromeda has a subtle soliton in it. Could this be a gravity wave, moving through the breadth of Andromeda along with something else to cause the top of the bulge to blow foward like the spraying crest of an ocean wave. In fact the center area (core) of Andromeda is filled with stuff much like uneven puffs of cotton battan and so light dense not any of the stuff is penetrated it is solid seeing. Of course that comes right back to the problem of resolution by collection of photons rendered into grains in photgraphic media, each grain bigger by far than many stars in a hot density area seen at such long distance. There were other astronomical objects of celestial nature studied of course, as well as the giant red spot on Jupiter. The only consistent failure or weakness in the 3-D creating viewing techniques used for this study is a universal tendency for anything reddish to float above its background. For instance any photo with red stars as well as white or blue always had red stars floating above the background's dark field. Filmy or flimsy red wisps or nebula or clouds (supposed dust) also floated above, except that where the red was the whole of the object, 3-D stereo study was immediately able to reveal interesting aspects certainly yes about many commonly known celestial objects. On the other hand red did not equal red. In other words, in a same picture, red could be seen to plunge into depth in one part of an object's image and float above in another. An object, Page 6, July 96 Astronomy Mag, imaged in faint dark bluish color of one tone, and thin lines of red and haze, covering two opposed sectors around the perimeter on either side of a rough sperical shape, has a red outer edge in a thin bar plunging deeply into depth, and on the opposite other side a less dominant thin arc of red floating above projecting out toward you the viewer. The bar is a right angle to the arc on opposite side. This two-kind red shift or depthizing instantly raises many questions about optical and color physics, as well as revealing some V E R Y I N T E R E S T I N G 3-D details about the real topological shape of this neat nebula object as it sits in space itself. There are two bubbles, or domes, for an example, each protruding from the center as if soap bubbles on the surface of something else of other density but these are clouds of matter of another density floating apart from the thing behind and so being dense are obscuring what actually lies behind. The 2 diffuse soap bubbles are not part of the artifact per se'. For one thing it (this unnamed nebula) in small colored photo is not a vague diffuse ring like a smoke ring of rouphly spherical shape from say a cigar it is a compact artifact of precise area in design. In fact it may be a pie plate disk lying behind vertically at about a 20 degree angle rotated away around a vertical shaft with a front face of casual dust floating by in front, larger, and floating well free of the object itself, behind, shown red in the photo, and since being behind and rotated, it is self evident cause as to why one side of the red is projecting forward through the blue forground haze, and why the other side is receeding into depth in red color. The dark bluish haze is actually wrapping around the inner red area like an atomosphere. The two, red and blue, are distinct unalike phenomena. Can't say more. Is the inner red a disk or a sphere. It looks like a sphere when studied, except the small vertical slash of red on the left edge stands out well above even the dark blue overcover in standalone chromatic prism, but the red bar on the other edge is well behind the blue murky overcover. Hmmmm? It is described in other detail further below, the detail given simply to assist anyone to see if they can see the same such detail. Either I did, or hyperventallated each time I looked at it in 3-D VIRTUAL STEREO and so imagined some too-boyant input, not an unreasonable thought since the two images I had of it to work with were small, about the size of a large postage stamp, and printed in popular monthly magazines of newstand class, good pictures, but in no way high fidelity having maximum PIXELS or lots of groovy juice comprising high count information. Another celestial object, called the Helix Nebula, in color Page 44 July 96 Astronomy Magazine, and in a very small black and white on Page 57 Astronomy Magazine September 93, is a question mark due to two different image interpretations, between black and white, and color. The black and white version seems to show a rough donut just like that you buy in the coffee shop, but the color is a section of column like a short stubby tube of a refractor telescope or a small section of stove pipe, and oriented at angles masking the true size of the circular opening in the middle. Details further below. Oh well why wait. Here is a quick sidestep to tease your appetite. The well known Helix nebula is called the Helix RING nebula because it is, in fact, in 2-D photos, a diffuse wide ring of gas around occupied center area like a smoke ring from a cigar, could be a donut but looks flat, the center area a circular matter filled region in the black and white photo, and a clear area in dark blue with one star dead center in the color photo. In fact the color photo and its center area seems to be telling you something starkly self evident about the true nature of the HELIX nebula's topological shape, because a physical model already exists for it. In fact in the color photo the center area is actually as large as the opening at the front of the Helix but is trunkated into a circular concept rather than lenticular by coincidence of alignment of the object in space relative to the telescope's camera. Except, the cylander toroid model is simply not seen in the black and white photo. Here is the model: Take a section of stove pipe, cut off a piece a litle longer than it is wide, hold it up in front of you angled horizontally at about 30 degrees so that one open end is closer to you, the other farther away, turn the thin metal shell into a transparant thin cloudish reddish skin, you have the Helix nebula. Its shape is an open tube, roughly the proportion of a short piece of stove pipe. It is obvious now that the lenticular (not circular nor elliptical) clear open center is exactly what you will have if looking straight up the center of a stovepipe and then turning it slightly. This true stovepipe shape is seen in images in which the nebula gas has been toned red against a dark background, but not the same for the same nebula's photo printed in a magazine in black and white. However the stove pipe shape is again clearly seen in a black and white photo of greater detail on the inside front cover of the OCT 96 issue of Astronomy Magazine. The only difference between the red, and monochrome, is that the entirety of the image in red floated above its dark background, however textures within the red revealed details on its own that were 3-D and stereo, and not caused by chromatic abberation alone as a fault, the details are genuine, within the fault of the chromatic abberation. this thing is a piece of stove pipe. A stove pipe object it is, this bid a bet in the lotto of failed or successful attempts. Incidentally, other photos in this ad for Mead products brought in the ad to great hights of detail, are revealing in their own right. A galaxy in bluish purple in the lower right hand corner reveals itself to be almost a solid of obscuring dark dust and matter on convolution swirls vortexing down by a shallow gradiant to a middle, the inner object just barely seen as a zodiac of a barely glimpsed strip of light barely showing through the solid stringy cotton batton sinues of dark matter. The unnamed nebula discussed at length for its red inner and dark bluish outer overcoat is shown in sharp black and white detail in the opposite lower corner of the Mead ad, and nothing whatever about the exterior and in behind other manifestation is seen, except the irregular large white areas are seen to be showing through from behind a dark overcover that is spherical like an atmosphere floating high over a globe. Wait till you see the double object in the center top of the same Meade ad. That smaller galaxy, far back in the distance from the main forward 'spiral' galaxy, is a globe. The 'spiral' galaxy is not a disk pinwheel fashion it is a travelling center moving back at rapid speed into space spewing off tall thick arms of matter (or sucking it toward itself in a vortex tunnel). The string of material arcing straight to the other galaxy is actually arcing far out into deep space forward then slueing around and backward a long distance to suddenly slew again to the left dipping straight into the center of the globe. A rapidly moving black hole sort of comes to mind, but, say, is it possible that this black hole is spewing out matter, due to its velocity, or causing matter to precipitate and be sucked in vortex fashion if travelling forward toward the telescope. Blue shift in travelling fast forward would be countered by red shift in the light leaving the black hole region as travelling forward. A Star Trek worm hole, this one transferring matter from one place to another in front of itself, apart from the streaming arc linking the two objects vastly separated in stellar space, almost comes to mind, well, in fact it did just come to mind didn't it. GM. A MORE REVEALING IMAGE A more revealing image of the same double object turns out to be a Mead Pictor ad on Page 6 of the July 96 issue of Astronomy Magazine, this image earlier bypassed by me due to its false coloring. But another study working around the falseness reveals that the black thin tube of matter arcing around through the foreground to head back toward the farther distant background globe entity, is in fact a thin ribbon, a wide film strip that arcs along a horizontal plane. It is not seen to take a sudden dip to the left to enter the globe galaxy further back, in this photo's dense black and red encounterance at the other rear galaxy. A lighter blue upper arm between two darker arms can be seen (despite chromatic distortion) to be heading out into space in the opposite direction to the forground vortexes, so hurtling through space this object is not, you can say it is stationary, with sheets of vertical matter winding toward the core from both fore and rear sides. Question is, where is the matter coming from is it being sucked in? Precipitation as raw new matter? An object so intense it can precipitate matter into empirical space from another dimension? For science fiction, perhaps? Forget the roaring black hole vortex hurtling through space, that was just a bit of science fiction imagination. Sorry. Okay, lets boos cruise the rest of the images. Re: photos for Mead Products on the glossy inside cover of Astronomy Magazine October 96, back to these: The diffuse elliptical galaxy seen below the Helix Nebula on the left in this same page is too grainy to reveal detail about its inherent construction. Jupiter's giant red spot is too weakly rendered to reveals its sunken caldera and downsink vortex nature, besides, chromatic abberation has effect causing the red to stand above the background to further ruin details in this very small rudimentary photo of the Giant Red Spot. The impact crater has spectacular high walls and pinnacle peaks. The nebular that looks like a blood clot has large tongues wrapping around a small inner piece well inside the parabolic front opening, the white spot not seeming a part of the object at all but rather a clump of stars well in front in space. Black holes are everywhere. Or, there is something else powerful and mighty too but not, quote, black holes. Notwithstanding.... back to the Mead ad.... The uneven 'spiral' galaxy at bottom center is another 'black hole' kind of raging vortex, large dikes of matter slueing off or being sucked in in raging vortexes that are partially chaotic in this particular entity. The word 'galaxy' no longer really applies, unless the word 'galaxy' is expanded to include all massive structures no matter the kind or cause. 'Galaxy' implies flat spinning disks spewing steamers in pinwheel fashion, or eccretion disks without spiral definition. That is a very limited class of 3-D objects. Gorgian knots may be one of the more common class of all regards giant galaxies. Thank you Mead Pictor products for taking such care to provide such detailed resolutions overall. ----------------------- LAST MINUTE QUICK NOTES ----------------------- TIGHTLY WOUND ARMS The tightly wound arms of NGC 7606 shown on Page 74 of Astronomy Magazine June 96, is a torus around a small center, the torus diffuse and flattened but not thinned out to flatness like the rings of Saturn. A solar wind of flimsy material ecliptically around the core (as it is with the solar wind and the Sun - or is it the extended magnetosphere) is more appropos to describe this kind of torus which gradually tapers out to a thin cutting edge. BARRED SPIRAL GALAXY NGC 925 IN TRIANGULUM Its flipping through space, like a coin flipping through the air, matter jumping free from its surfaces in chaos like dusts rising that once coated the coin hard to tell exactly due to poor resolution, but flipping like a coin is hedged as the bet because...... BARRED SPIRAL GALAXY NGC 7640 IN ANDROMEDA The edge-on Barred Spiral galaxy NGC 7640 in Andromeda Page 75, June 96, astronomy Magazine, does not seem to be a true barred galaxy spinning with a spew of matter arcing over above and below the main flat disk. The galaxay is quite fat, like a flatworm commonly studied transparently by biology students. The wedges top right and bottom left are banks of concentrated dense dust floating in the foreground in front of the galaxy itself giving it its up/down chisle shape, which is otherwise an illusion. So this galaxy is NOT 'barred'. BARRED SPIRAL NGC 7479 IN PEGASUS Barred spiral NGC 7479 in Pegasus, Page 71, June 96, Astronomy Magazine, is another flat pie plate or chimney flue being spun flutter fashion (like a coin flipping through air) around a horizontal shaft with matter spewing off in arcs from opposite leading edges at right angles to the spin, arcing over, above and below, the flat disk rotated at 90 degrees, in other words. The same kind, much larger, in black and white, just found on Page 19 October 96 Astronomy Magazine reveals without question that this galaxy is actually a pie plate a-flutter spinning like a chimney flue and throwing off arcs of water the arcs thowing off at right angles to the flat disk exactly in the correct physics of water flinging off opposite edges of a flat flue being spun by its horizontal shaft across its flat face. A guess says that if this galaxy was seen edge on (rotated 90 degrees) it would be similar in topology to Barred spiral NGC 7479 in Pegasus. UNNAMED DOUBLE GALAXY LINKED BY A THIN TRAIL OF MATTER This object is reported unnamed because even though it appears in many magazines and issues, usually within ads for astronomy products or even in a full page color ad as the image in a computor viewscreen for Meade Epoch 2000sk Sky Software, all of the images are given without its name. But, here is its most unique topological characteristic, (already in fact describe from a black and white photo further above in blow by blow descripts of a Meade Products ad on the glossy inside cover of OCT 96 Astronomy Magazine). IN A COLOR VERSION, SEEN IN A COMPUTER SCREEN IN A MEADE AD The second galaxy is a long way further back, almost behind the larger spiral object out front. The thin trail of stellar matter actually arcs foreward in a long circle like a piece of hula hoop then comes on down past the outside and keeps going backward at the same thickness, to then finally take a dive to the left into the top of a large spheroidal shaped galaxy at the rear which is seen small and flat but is actually seen edge on and it is the kind which has matter surrounding it like an impurely shaped balloon. It is not purely flat like a disk. The main spiral galaxy seen face on up front has very deep walls of crease matter comprising its swirls, like a raging hurricane that is thick and not flattened out, in that the dense matter is spiralling in to the center in a vortex from planes above the center rather than along side. The shape of this may be an egg roll with a hot center rolled up half way along inside, or, rather, the center is at the far deep end of a vortex like the open bottom end of a tornado and wide swirls at the upper end in the clouds. The black and white photo on the inside front cover of Astronomy Mag Oct 96 shows even more the vortex nature of the main forground object, in which the 'spiral' arms start far more forward than the hot spot center, indicating the center is receeding directly away relative to the sheeted curtains of debre being left behind, rather than new material being sucked into the core, or, the object is moving forward toward the telescope so that yin yang in the blueshift-redshift of its special/gravitational relativistics, are definative. TINY DOTS IN FRONT OF BIG DOTS - THE SMALL MAGELLANIC CLOUD Page 110 of the October 96 issue of Discover Magazine is a starry backdrop with several large foreground seeming stars. There are several tiny in fact even teeny stars in 3-D space closer to us than giant stars further deep in the background distances. This single photo confirms that star size alone is not falsely producing fake stereo image distances. The flatness at the front face of the starry backdrop is the long distance focal range of the telescope where range seeking ended to start focusing in the starry backdrop. In effect, in 3-D in this photo the carpet of stars starts a long distance back from the fore frame comprising the view window into which you look made by the initial long distance focus of the telescope to this other nearby object outside of our own galaxy. MICRO BIOLOGY On Page 88 of the October 96 issue of Discover, (it's a notice of award given to Proctor And Gamble) is a microscopic view of fillibrated and treated cotton fibers. This view renders well in 3-D virtual stereo. So microscopic new information can be readily gained by virtual 3-D stereo techniques of a single mono picture colored or in black and white taken by micro scope. Another picture, on page 28 of the October 96 Discover issue, is not so lucky. Although the picture reveals some stereo details it is not ideal for 3-D virtual stereo due to mottling in the false coloring of digital enhancement which diminishes much of its full potential stereo content in this false color photo. GANYMEDE Here is a surprise. The darker areas on Ganymede as returned to Earth in images from Galileo, pictured on Page 5 of the October 96 issue of Astronomy Magazine, are deep dips and depressions on the surface of the planet in fact the white bands stand so high they are like human white blood cells gathered up and stetching along a microscopes glass slide. Who can say how high above the sunken darker wide areas of depression these white bands rise, but it is clear that so highly seen raised above the depressions on such a small shown planet that they far outscale in height anything seen on Earth in the way of scale or mountain ranges in height. Two dimples in the upper right quadrant at 1 o'clock are so deep as depressions, with high peak bulges protruding up like worn down volcanoes, that it sees that this area of that moon is flattened. It took a real bang one day in cosmic billards. PROTRUDES RIGHT OUT OF THE PAGE Wait till you see the stamp sized color photo in the left center of Page 47 of the September 93 issue of Omni Magazine. This huge ashcloud at the far end of a grain field is so majestic a vertical arm of ash extends right out of the page toward you the viewer, in virtual 3-D stereo using two lenses continued to maximum length of focus with great care. In the original photo the vertical arm of ash does not even seem to be out in any way at all from the round mushroom cap of the ashcloud. Can't tell if its a nuke explosion, ground level volcano, or giant fire. In any case that ash cloud is ENORMOUS!, in virtual stereo. TONGUES OF SWIRLING DUST The false color photo of the Face-on Spiral NGC 6946 in Cepheus on Page 71 in the June 96 issue of Astronomy, is revealing on two counts - the arms are tongues whirling inward vortex fashion - the center is not mishaped, the slight buldge lower left, with a blue touch in this large colored photo, is a large foreground starry object floating free in outer space, having nothing to do with the galaxy. ------------------------------- WARTS AND ALL, PIMPLES INCLUDED ------------------------------- The following is a chronology, a sequence of events, discovering then testing properties in any ordinary black and white or color photograph in which 3-D stereo information is contained within the pixel map of any photo or printed picture, every one non-stereo of course. This is standard daily media we are talking about, nothing high tech at all, and absolutely nothing whatever in the new 3-D viewing techniques to be revealed step by step one better developement after another in reverse order as you read on, progressing backward in time, to the late afternoon of NOV 5th, 1996. Such 3-D stereo information is not true to life, ie 100 feet true to life is not necessarily seen as 100 feet in VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO but rather as a perceptual separation of a half or a quarter or less yet unquestionably showing that distance is there even if not fully stretched out into the deeper depths or recesses of a true accounting photo of an original scene. -------- Subnote NOV 11/96. Part of the apparent collapse in field distance is due to matte texture of magazine paper quality. In fact, newest careful studies reveal that full stereo distance can be made real to life. The degree of depth focused up into view is not consistent with one photo or photo kind to another nor restricted to just black and white nor color, all picture kinds are valid including a digital sourced display from a graphic .JPG file on a computer screen. Large magnifying glasses, first one, then two are the sum total of the technolgy at hand, to do this 4-day round of tests searching for information and data facts about the 3-D phenomena. Two magnifying glasses of 5 inch diameter sit here on the table, both used all night long together as one device, last night until 4:30 in the morning. Today two flat plastic sheets etched with a grid to magnify (similar used to enlarge a TV picture or a page of text being typed by a stenographer, and costing $5.00 each at a handicapped person supply store), did nothing else but completely CONFIRM facts learned with the two 5 inch glass magnifying lenses. Otherwise their image ability is too imperfectly distorted made of poor quality with a slightly diffuse texture in the uneven plastic. USING TWO GIANT MAGNIFYING GLASS'S LENSES The simple technique of use is easily described but takes a bit of practice to first master. A single magnifying glass works. Two work better to focus details and to deepen the depth in the evidential 3-D stereo results, Here is the technique. Hold a magnifying glass in front of any flat photo or magazine illustration, or graphic picture on the screen it doesn't matter. Pull the glass and you back until the image suddenly splits into double vision. Move back in until the two images snap back into one, then very slowly pull back while keeping the eyes into overfocus. The image will subtely change texture and receed subtely further back. For instance if you are looking at typewritten text on a computer screen you will see individual words stereoscopically separate some floating, some slightly further back as you continue to move back and the brain fights to maintain focus control in a field of vision which has become momentarily slightly chaotic due to your gradual pullback motion while overfocusing into a non-natural brain-eye state beyond binnocular vision. Looking at computer generated 3-D images in a calender or weekend color section of a daily newspaper is exactly the same, you have to overfocus to see the 3-D. At some point, through a rather larger distance than you would at first suspect, two or more feet back for instance, the image will suddenly begin to blurr, then split into two parts, back to double vision. You may be able to correct, but better yet, go back to closeups and start over. Something unique occurs at the moment the vision finally lets go as the pulled extra focus, lengths into double vision. Just at the moment the blur occurs, or just before it in a very narrow band of focus, is your best 3-D VIRTUAL STEREO, when looking at any picture or photograph in black and white or color. Stereo sense can be seen right away as soon as you start to go into overfocus when pulling you and the magnifying glass both back, but the best stereo articulation seems to consistantly occur just at or before the point when the blurring occurs. As already said, the best in 3-D virtualizing is in a very narrow band of focus, it is easy to pass back and forth through this focusing range when starting out, hence the practice, which soon enough masters the technique for best VIRTUAL 3-D veiwing. For in fact some mastery of technique will be needed to handle two-lens adventures. Two lens does not mean one for each eye as in binoccular vision. Two lens means one in front of the other and both eyes look through the tube of vision created by the two single large lens stacked as if in the column tube of a telescope, except you are holding the lens in the open air in your bare hands, one lens in space behind the other. See what I mean about technique. This, believe me, takes co-ordination to focus the two lens correctly, but can be easily mastered and thereafter used instantly every time, after a bit of practice, to get its sense down pat. Larger lens are expected to be even better but they (I have been told) start at around $1000 bucks and then go higher, because larger are telescope grade, I am told. 5 inch lens size maximum is a standard, I am told. Anything larger costs. But, back to the main business in hand, ie, how to focus two lenses by hand: What you do is bring both lens's close enough to the object that both are magnifying and the object (magazine photo for instance) is normal and slightly magnified. Now, very slowly start to pull back. Almost at once the image will start to split into two in a jump. You have to go back and start again for it is almost impossible to re-align the split-two back into one without having the mastering of technique already under control, in fact as is now being described this is one way to quickly evolve that control. Once again start to pull out. This time you will feel more eye strain. Don't worry you get used to the odd sensation. As you pull further back a point is reach were once again (as with the single lens technique) the image blurs and starts to go out of focus, then can split suddenly into two. Just before that failsafe, is once again, a V E R Y real Depth Zone, where VIRTUAL 3-D is at its best. There is a second kind of Depth Zone that is even more precise if it has happened that you have been able to focus a wide degree of overfocus through the first lens (the lens closer to the flat object being viewed such as a picture in a magazine). I had the advantage of a 3 inch stamp collector's magnifying glass with handle and lens in a metal rim a'la' Sherlock Holmes style and this revealed a useful tool not so easily seen in the naked 5 inch lens held in the fingers behind a second 5 inch lens. When the glass with metal rim and handle was used, it was possible to follow the physics of the Holmes glass metal rim vrs naked lens otherwise, because of that metal rim. And so: getting the best 3-D VIRTUAL stereo depth image, the rim of the Holm's glass was seen to start folding over from both horizontal sides toward the middle almost as soon as I started to pull back with both lens held up in place in front of my face in front of the flat 2-D object being studied. Eventually, the 3 inch lens could fold over all the way into a thin lenticular vertical area in the middle of the view, within which was the very best stereo, resolved suddenly into very precise, very sharp, detail, just before the eyes had to let go from extra overfocus strain and the whole view dissolved into blur and immediately after double vision in the lens, each time tried, many times, hour after hour. Three outstanding features are learned right away, about 3-D VIRTUAL STEREO viewing. Any picture of any size including a full page landscape scene from the back of a magazine's glossy cover, can be so viewed: except, you look at parts of such a large picture instead of the whole thing at once. Larger magnifying lenses, viewed from a longer way back, could give you the whole view. With the technology I am describing, areas of larger flat 2-D pictures were studied in VIRTUAL STEREO 3-D in smaller areas rather then the whole. Smaller pictures could be seen in toto in single views, particularly in the narrow lenticular window of the lens closest to the picture being studied, when such a window appeared. In some cases, creating the lenticular window optically, and then using it, was not as appropriate. Two pictures regardless of size of original 2-D source, can result from such viewing, either by single lens, or the more precise 2-lens viewing array. The resultant VIRTUAL 3-D picture arrived to where you want to study it, can be both smaller than the original, or larger than the original, depending solely how far apart you hold the two lenses in the 2-lens array, or how close you hold a single lens to the image source and go into overfocus right away barely after the lens has moved when being pulled out. A third viewing system under rigorous investigation for the first 3 days of the 4 day session is in viewing two pictures side by side in a computer screen. In the tests done, each picture was from the same 2-D non-stereo single picture source digitalizes as a graphic .JPG file. In displayed form side by side on screen, there were two subtely different widths and two subtely different heights between the two pictures displayed. Common details in each picture had to be no more than 3 1/2 inches apart side by side on the computer screen when studied by naked eyes stereo, but could fill the width of the screen when lenses were used. Two different occular techiques were used. The first and which initiated the 4 day round of intense non-stop tests testing the whole phenomena of VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO, was in simply overfocusing two small similar images of dissimilar size by straining the eyes, exactly as if lapsing into a daydream and the eyes relax into double vision, except the relaxing is actually focusing to a long distance point, for instance at or beyond a floor under a table, the two images start to come toward each other, then converge into one, a new image formed in the middle (hence VIRTUAL because it is not really there in physical solidness) with originals one on either side of the third image in the middle, the third being the image you are intensly interested in. This third image had to be small because any two common data points in the two originals could not be any further apart than the binoccular distance between a pair of human eyes, roughly 3 1/2 inches apart. A second technique was quickly realized (after a day and a half) to view larger images (and small) on the computer screen, by using a giant magnifying glass lens which happened to be sitting on hand on the table top all along as an orniment. The large lens produces large images which could be almost instantly overlapped to converge into a third (the virtual in the middle) in stereo, and in fact you could both magnify, or diminish, the resultant third image, easily, by simply moving back all the way out to the failsafe limit (larger magnified) or close into the screen shrunken, which can reveal more finer small detail in stereo) using just the single 5 inch lens, then later, a second 5 inch lens to amplify the stereo effect, then finally the Sherlock Holmes 3 inch lens with metal rim and handle to study the optical mechanics leading to a description of a lenticular vertical viewing window vertically in the middle of the Holmes' lens as closer lens to the flat 2-D photo graphic being viewed on screen. The lenticular lens study was transferred to simple magazine picture, the pages of a magazine (such as Scientific American) being turned one by one until another interesting picture appeared and the whole magazine clamped upright in a small blue painted metal tabletop vice with swivel mounts and a normal 6 inch wide circular protractor used as a support backpiece clamped in behind along with the magazine in the vice. This settup could support even a thick Scientific American issue vertically upright in front of my face so that a small photo or whole page as a photo could be studied at will effortlessly. Small photos studied included the little bullet shots that accompany one-column news bulletins in such magazines as Scientific American, Discovery, and Popular Science. Back to the sea of discovery. An interest very dark moodish half page photo in black and white of a lake scene looking across towards a far shore and mountains, (it is a view across a gloomy mountain lake) came out resolved in a two lens study with very favorable stereo in terms of long distance stereo view, which was a suprise, in that it seemed to be a poor quality photo, but instead may have been a very high quality photo taken in poor light for instance at dusk. In any case you could see that high peaks at the very back of the photo (the lake) were very 'distant' mountain ranges behind two distant tree lines at the head end of the lake on the shore oh, say, a half an hour by outboard motor to a farther end from the camera. I can't describe the scene any further without using a thousand words to describe a single picture. --------- sub comment NOV 11/96 Unfortunately a number of pictures were cut from magazines to view laid flat on a table surface then latter mounted side by side upright, duo copied by color Xerox at two different scales, in the initial belief that the the only way to achieve Virtual 3-D stereo was by superimposure of two shots of dissimilar size. This prooved not the case, unfortunately a number of photos from magazines now lie around, their borders cut away by scissars, so there is no hope of figuring out which magazines and which issues they originated from, their reference sources can't be cited. The page wide moody mountainous lake scene is one of them, probably from a recent issue of EARTH magazine. Another picture, in full bright color, full page, in an issue of EARTH magazine, features a marine biologist in the near foreground digging into the tide line with tide out, two bright red rubber boats with outboards moored along the shore farther to the left, across the inlet to another island or shore a small luxury boat very near the far shore, and behind it the tree line, with another tree line in a small area peaking up behind, much dimmer in detail and color, which, under the scope of VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO turns out to be the peaks of a very distant mountain range, exactly in fact the kind of view of the coast just north of Vancouver up into Howe Sound and Gibson's landing. That sudden resolving into appearance a distance mountain range was a distinct surprise because there was no way I could have known its true nature in just looking at the naked photo as a normal single 2-D flat single bright color picture image. Another intriguing confirmation arose in studying the brightly colored highly detailed printed on glossy paper on the back recent issues of EARTH magazine featuring a number of people of both sexes in knee deep water fishing in a small flat river in the jungle, the view looking upstream about half a mile to the shallow tree line at a soft curve in the river. The intriguing surprise is that up near the bend on the right hand side of the photo a lower clump of shrubs turned out to be not shrubs at all but a shelf of solid rock outcropping into the river a short way, and rather high say 15 to 20 feet to the top of this green covered platform rather than shrubs just a few feet high. Which has started the speculation engines going in overdrive. Just where in such a photo is the 3-D information being stored, to make the single flat image 2-D non-stereo image resolvable in 3-D STEREO, regardless if it is VIRTUAL 3-D stereo or otherwise. Somewhere in the pixels of a picture the 3-D information is stored. But where. Further cause to the mystery is found in studying any astronomy picture which has a mat or carpet of stars around a celestial object in central domain in the photograph. For instance a picture of a galaxy must have by nature all stars appearing in the picture being local to this galaxy. Which raises two questions at once. (Forget red stars - chromatic abberation typically lifts red stars and floats them above the darker backdrop of space. I'll get back to red stars in a minute). The second question is are we dealing with illusions at the bottom line - will all larger stars appear closer to the camera in VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO. The answer is no. Obviously most larger stars in black and white appear closer to the camera, being presumed to be closer to the camera in the first place, but in looking around carefully a signifant number of smaller stars could be seen sitting well behind in deep space behind larger stars in fact some of the well receeded deep back in space stars were very tiny hardly more than pin pricks compared to giant stars immediately nearby in the photo. So, depth is genuine according to true scale of depth and distance, proved by the fact that tiny stars could lay further back in depth from larger (foreground stars). Another question was answerable at once. Some larger or dimmer large stars did not resolve themselves out of galaxies to float in the foreground. These, it could be seen, stayed dull and are at or in the galaxies and so are globular clusters, even though they could poorly be seen to be any different than foreground Milky Way larger stars due to poor resolution on grainier printed photos on ordinary magazine quality paper and mass production printing techniques. The biggers stars that stayed dull and stuck like glue to galaxies are globular clusters. Hmmm sorry forgot to mention: images noticably brighten in virtual 3-D view. Stars for instance become brighter, because they separate from the coarse 'matte' surface of the paper and are subtly changed in optical scattering and real space surrounding each stand up image. But not so the distant small globular clusters, they are too far away for their cross sections to change by much so their optical scattering stays much the same, and so stay dull while nearby stars brighten. And now it gets really interesting. You of astronomy buff and interested amateur or otherwise, what do you think is the true shape of the pair of twin galaxies in the 'Stephan's Quintet in Pegasus, shown on Page 73 June 96 issue of Astronomy Magazine. Try a corkscrew. The tail of one corkscrews from a very long distance out in deep space, through one galaxy and corkscrews back into deep space to then start arcing forward again on the wind of a corkscrew to end at the second galaxy which sits on a horizontal plane relative to the other which is aligned in vertical place. Think of a swiss watch with a long thin strap like a ribbon, the kind used to tie a birthday gift package. The trail from the galaxy doesn't thin into a diminishing tip like the curved tail of a swordfish in a home aquarium the home aquarium swordfish tail is an illusion due to the fact that the wide ribbon thin stream arching straight back behind the lead galaxy deep into space has nature that simply cannot be inferred from a flat 2-D image. The true nature of this galaxy pair is a corkscrew, sitting as a stark and startling artifact, in deep space, as seen in a small black and white photograph no less, as seen in a VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO image. Incidentally, the globular cluster NGC 7217's on the same page beside Stephan's Quintet, has a ping pong ball in the middle. Put a ping pong ball inside a softball made of cotton candy and that is your globular cluster. It (the ping pong ball inner core) was seen by focusing to a maximum extreme using a single 5 inch magnifying glass lens, in which the length from eyes to lens was about 9 inches and the length from lens to photo about 13 inches. In this array, I was pulled back as far as possible while concentrating on maintaining the image in single image focus and unblurred. This is a total focal length of about 24 inches, 7 or 8 times normal magnifying glass distances. And now for the big bang. The big bang is in the way of news and not in the way of an equation leading to Galaxies. The fact is that galaxies are hurricanes. Forget the picture of thin wispy disks with stars availabe enough in flat 2-D photos to be accurately counted. Galaxies are massive hurricanes of stupendous fury with huge curved walls and columns of dense matter and gas whose star content can hardly be quessed at let along counted. Picture looking at high aircraft photos of hurricanes moving in off the Atlantic toward shore in the Carribean and the coast of Florida. All well formed hurricanes are characterized by a tiny eye in the middle, but more so by tall thin ribbons of cloud bank of heavy moisture density formed in curving spirals around each other with thin areas in between with less or almost no moisture content, so they can at times be seen to be clear of turbulence. Along the top, are tops of many small thunder storms, the heads popping up as tiny mushrooms, all the way around the many thick ribbons of chaos in an Atlantic hurricane. Suppose you the professional astronomer descided to count the total moister content of the hurricane but are so far out in space that you can only see a thin flat disk comprising the hurrican but can see its features, its spiral nature, its little centerpoint eye. And so to count you count what you see, the many tiny thunderheads sticking up, but because of such long distance you can only see 2-D since the hurricane's depth is only a tiny fraction of its distance to you so far out in space so the depth of the hurrican is not recognized in the truth of what you see and therefore know. And so you count the many tiny thunderheads, as if they were stars, make an estimate of the thunderheads you do not see, and call this the 'hurricane'. Listen here, you are missing about 95 to 98 percent of the hurricane by counting that way. If you can picture yourself looking over the top of badlands, for instance in Alberta, and seeing the weather worn round tops and sides of uprocks surrounded by deep clefts, ridges, valleys, but in the main you see there are huge tall ribbons and runs of solid matter with deep clefts running like ribbons around and between the masses of the badlands. Now let the imagination drift ever so slightly, to the Galaxy M83 for instance and superimpose the badland nature over this galaxy, and real hurricane physics over this galaxy and then look at this galaxy in VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO and the 3-D IMAGE is just about exactly the SAME as you have just imagined. Deep narrow rifts are down there in between the tall mighty massive thick ribbons of matter that comprise the spiralling arms, the matter so dense in cloud and such dust that hardly any of its stars can be seen, and start counting all over again, looking for the missing mass. However in the case of M83 also be aware that it is a tangled mess of vortexes as well, not flat at all, not just merely a hurricane or a badland. At this point in time, circ 1996, you have hardly started counting stars at all, until now. Hey, what's that just revolving around the turn into view in midscreen. Its the giant red spot of Jupiter. Two quick denials; the spot is not a bulge, the spot is not flat on the surface of jupiter, like a hurricane. The red spot is a vortex, just like looking down the top end of a tornado. The vortext goes down into the atmosphere. The whole of the vortex is a sunken region, like the caldera of a large old volcano on Earth. The wall around the sinkhole might be hundreds of miles high in a sheer vertical drop. All of the features on the surface of Jupiter, the tiny bud shapes, the abstract puffs of extra white cloud, are either sunked, or raised, some surrounded by scuplted deep round based valleys as if a sandblaster has gone to work on a polished gemstone imbedded within less dense rock. In particular, you might look at the maw of the giant Red Spot on Jupiter as looking at the entrance into your lower intestine from your stomach by a miniature color TV camera inserted down your gullet by a deft technician. But all homeopathic images aside, think of a giant vortex in which the cold of outer space is spilling in slow downsink spiral motion into the depths of Jupiter. The clue to interpret cold down sink rather than hot up well is in the high sheer cliff wall bank that rims the downsunk caldera that houses the vortex. The only way you can know this is by seeing the vortex in VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO reality. In, fact, once the true nature of the giant red spot is seen, its characteristics, in a detailed black and white photograph, change forever. For instance, the white band of cloud that surrounds the rim is not cloud at all, carefully speaking it's cloud but not wispy white the whiteness is the solidness of the sheer vertical cliff face which may be hundreds of miles high. You gotta see it folks, you gotta see it at least once in your life in VIRTUAL 3-D REALITY. All of the magazine illustrations of topologies on Venus, of Mons Olympus on Mars, and the mysterious face and pyramids on Mars, have disappeared, have been thrown out in a purge of urgent housecleaning earlier this fall, these images are not available for study or I would have reported on them now. Reports are finished. ------------------------------ BACK TO CONTINUE THE BEGINNING ------------------------------ The single consistent parameter for depth heading toward true form is PICTURE QUALITY. For example a full color photograph on the high gloss meticulously printed cover of an issue of EARTH magazine, has better stereo depth seen right away without question. It seems the better quality the picture the better the stereo depth resolution and this could be a factor simply of more 'PIXELS" in use comprising the picture print. In other words the more 'PIXELS', the more stereo depth, in the fact of more inherent information stored. And, except in rare instances, depth to the nth degree is not seen. Some depth is seen in all cases. Whereas in fact ANY depth can reveal new information about true topology or distinction if any depth at all is perceptually available. VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO is a valuable tool, even if just a bit of depth is apparent when studying a picture. Some depth is infinately better than no depth at all. Such otherwise 'trunkated' stereo depth yet still stereo, is herein called VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO, or also 3-D VIRTUAL STEREO, to separate this form, gained from any single photograph, from true 3-D stereo gained from two separate photographs taken from two cameras or lens sitting apart, and from original ordinary unaided human vision 3-D stereo known as 'binoccular vision'. PIXEL here means any black and white or color dots or grains used to print a picture in a magazine or produce a photograph, and also pixels from digital version of the same image, scanned and rendered as a GIF or .JPG file for display on a computer screen. In a four day period numerous circumstances were thought of, tested, confirmed or failed, and a few speculations which were thought to be real turned out to be bogus, whereas in the same time period several surprises occurred in which it became not possible at this moment to specify bottom line parameters for the phenomena called 'chromatic abberation'. CHROMATIC ABBERATION Chromatic abberation is a tendency for colors to separate according to their prism. For instance a bold red will float above a bold blue background. Also, telescope lens are of poor quality if not optically corrected in the glass for spherical chromatic abberation in which spurious red will appear against one edge of an image, and blue against the opposite edge depending on how the head is held in viewing through such an uncorrected glass lens. Eyeglass lenses are also typically corrected for chromatic abberation when the lens are thick. Mine are for shortsightness and thick. I once had a pair of glass lens peepers and chromatic abberation was interesting to play with since it was so noticable, but the glasses had to be replaced by a different more intelligent optomitrist soon after since the abberation interfered with some aspects of normal vision. In these 3-D virtual stereo tests currently underway as of the last four days, chromatic abberation has been observed in several different ways leading to the curious fact that there does not seem to be any ground zero or bottom line set of definitions to pin point the abberation into a set of standards. For instance on the computer screen, the FARSTAR HOME PAGE link from former network server address HTTP://WWW.TRAVEL-NET.COM/~GREYDIE is a solid blue backround with solid red HOTLINK type which floats well above the blue background. However, in onscreen two-image overfocuses 3-D VIRTUAL STEREO either by eyesight alone or with the assist of a large magnifying glass an image with a light yellow background and dominant blue, red, and green portions together in a piece of handrawn art (the balloon itself in the balloon which appears in the HOTBOX link in the FARSTAR HOME PAGE, is, in VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO onscreen totally without chromatic abberation at all, whereas the original art, held upright in a vice support and studied in VIRUAL 3-D STEREO with both one, and two, giant magnifying glasses, has the red deeply recessed next to blue floating above the surface matte of the paper, and green floating highest of all, above the blue, and starkly above the deep sunken floor comprising a red valley, right next to the blue, and green. What is the parameter that causes red to sink below a blue floating above, with green floating above the highest of all. Is it a pale yellow background in the balloon drawing. That doesn't make sense. Further, a celestial object Page 6 July 96 Astronomy Mag is interesting, because it has two dense thin small red lines which both float above, and sink deep into the same image the red sinker on one side of the image, and the red floater on the other, curious because the sink and float feature is sustained when the image is turned upside down or sidways, in other words the sink/float oppositive parameter is in the celestial object's image itself and is not an event from chromatic abberation or technology viewing the image such as two strain-intense magnifying glasses. (See further below under CELESTIAL OBJECTS for a description of what this nebula is actually like in deep outer space. Also see the description of the even more interesting stove pipe tube in space currently called the Helix nebula, see further above. As pointed out further above (near the top) chromatic abberation seems to be mostly or even entirely cancelled in the two-lens viewing mechanism. Which serves very well to look at clouds of Earth in color. For instance look to the cloud release experiment photo on Page 83 of the September 1996 issue of Astronomy Magazine for an opportunity to see detail in stereoscopics, you never thought possible to ever see in such a photo. However, red and blue color separation can be conversely intensified when certain narrow focal bandwidths are achieved in two lens focusing, in particular when the focal array is pulled in stretch v e r y far apart, say, at least twice or more the usual distance. GALAXY M61 On page 82 of the same issue of Astronomy is a picture of galaxy M61 in Virgo. It unique feature, instantly seen in Virtual 3-D using the two lens system, is that it is a vortex where huge vertical banks of dense stellar matter sweep in arcs backward into depth toward a local center, in which a lot of stellar matter exists arcing in steep walls vortexing out into space in our direction, (some forms of brain coral in the ocean can look like this) and so are well out over the center core and not flung out sidways. In this colored picture, chromatic abberation is taking partial charge with red and blue both separated from the background, but presence of other matter is seen in black and white, so the vortex nature of this huge and massive construction can be clearly seen. It is not a quiet friendly neighborhood thin galaxy at all in fact it could be almost as thick as it is wide if senses of seeing in VIRTUAL 3-D don't lie. The scene is seemingly of a huge spheroidal roaring vortex twisting in slow motion, with vertical cloud banks and sweeping ridges of vertical stuff relative to its horizontal plane dominating its form. GALAXY M81 Another galaxy image, this one galaxy M81 on page 81 of the same Sept 93 issue of Astronomy magazine, is yet again very different. This one is a way more subdued in comparison to M61. In fact its center sphere is like a shiny round pearly turtle egg set in a cavity surrounded by tall banks of whirling spiralling cloud material, and there is no indication of matter covering the top of the inner core. See Page 91 Sept 93 issue of Astronomy Magazine. INNER PHOTON MYSTERY - WHERE IS THE 3-D INFORMATION STORED Now, here is where the missing photons question comes back big time to mind. On page 81 of the September 93 Astronomy Magazine issue is a photograph showing four large white dots that are planets, and Pluto a 5th tiny dot at the top edge of the photo. VIRTUAL 3-D study with a two lens embodiment reveals just what you would expect; the largest white spot to the left is closest to your view (it is Jupiter), the second largest, and second closest up, this time on the right hand side, is Saturn. The third closest, and 2nd smallest, also on the right, is Uranus, the third largest (hardly much different in size to the other, and second most further back is Neptune although its depth and size are rather hard to see but by far the furthest back is tiny Pluto, very clearly seen away back in the distance it actually almost touches the top of the photo in original printed 2-D on page 81 in the Spetember 93 issue of Astronomy Magazine. It was in fact using distances, to separate the range to the different distant planets, the range between Uranus and Neptune rather hard to guage since this photo could perhaps have been taken when Neptune was recently closer to the orbit of Uranus. A difference to slightly larger size, and slightly further back, identified it as being Neptune. Each of the planets including Jupiter were otherwise only large white spots in this photo. The peppering backdrop of stars in the Milky Way beyond Pluto, did not resolve into rifts or valleys or cliffs or sheets, each in fact being merely single square pixels generated by computer thus having no inherent content as to range or density. OOOPS I ALMOST FORGOT. WHAT IS THE BEST REVEALING GALAXY IMAGE I forgot to mention that the best galaxy picture on hand at the moment here at home work-table headquarters, in revealing the steep cloud banks of stellar matter wrapping in thick snaking curvatures as the spiral arms of galaxies, and also indicated as existing in other forms of galaxies more as circular column rings of thin giant cloud banks rather than flat feeble density disk rings, is a photo of the galaxy named M83 I have on hand galaxy M83. It is in fact the front cover of the September 93 issue of Astronomy Magazine. Albiet there is red in this large photo and chromatic prism effects are plain, in fact however texture is easily seen within the red plane which stands forward incorrectly from the backdrop, however there is also plenty of monochrome material and this reveals most of all. For instance just right of center in the upper right quadrant is a vague tongue of darkness which looks at first like perhaps a less dense region letting some blackness of the universe back drop show throw. Not correct to think this at all. It is a tongue of super dense matter showing no transparancy through it whatever the density on par with the blacker density of rich material contained in black water venting from deep oceon rifts and smokers. This curved tongue of material in the M83 photo is arcing out well above the plane of the galaxy, like a thick tongue sticking up and out from a fat lizard lurking below the murk. The narrow bands of darker material which seem concentrated in thin bands of material sweeping around the middles of the arms are of a different density, in fact they are like horny ridges on the backs of turtles or reptiles like an alligator and not flismy viels at all. This galaxy is in no way delicate, it is MASSIVE and very TURBULENT. Immediate to the left of center are two dark ridges of two entirely different kind but look as one continuous thin swirl in the 2-D photograph, spiralling out and downward to the left as a gap between spiral arms, pinwheel fashion, in 2-D photo. This is two completely different phenomena, hooked together illusionarily by co-incidence in the photograph. In VIRTUAL 3-D the upper part of the ridge curls up, then dips straight over into the core center region an actual stand-up long thin ridge or also rill whereas the lower part of the dark curve is a deep long thin valley. All the tiny dots of starlight cresting all curling ridges, are clusters cresting the ridges, but exactly like rows of small thunderheads that crest the ridges of Atlantic hurricanes and so stand up above the main plane of the hurricane itself. Most of the white spots representing stars are clusters tied to the galaxy itself only a few of the spots are floating in the foreground to be Milky Way stars nearby, the size of each star not relevant as to place as a foreground Milky Way star, or other star clusters at the galaxy. Lots to see, first time looking, in THIS photo. Yes indeed. This is a very massive thick object in turbulence, it is not quiet and flat at all. It is not repeat not disk thin and ephemeral like Saturn's rings. BEST GALAXY PHOTO TO REVEAL TRUE NATURE Well, in fact, any good shot of Andromeda, in terms of plane and angle of disk facing the telescope camera, usefully reveals the fierce slow motion hurricane-like nature, of big walls of dense material in cloud banks of inner construction. There are a lot more stars in these objects than can be counted in mere 2-D photos showing thin disks which seem essentially flat and can seem to be opaque through inner regions. Any opaque regions would have to be seen from the top or bottom looking through, and would be very thin, like the empty ribbons in the wide bands of ring stuff around Saturn, except the rings of Saturn are vertically thin, not at all like giant tall-walled hurricanes. Most of the galaxies looked at, in 2-D seemingly are spinning off thin disks of matter sideways like a pinwheel, but in fact most of the galaxies seen in a virtual 3-D, seem to be active rapidly around space throwing off sheets and tall thin walls of thick material. Or, also sucking such dense materials inward. Or also, tangled fully spheroidal objects. All three forms can be seen through one picture after another of different galaxies and classes, the classes no longer necessarily matching the galaxy as seen in virtual 3-D. The opaques seen in virtual 3-D are super dense dark matter, they are not see-throughs to the black backdrop of outer space. Which is not surprising, such opaqueness is typically called obscuring bands of dust, except the bands can be massively thick like cloud layers of Earth, and many are floating around outside the area of a galaxy proper. QUICK COMMENT: I had thought this new section was going to be a quick summary in table or list form of certain features, certain data aspects, certain observed facts yes/no. But not so, it is coming out as a disseration keeping pace with flow of thoughts. Chromatic aberration at this moment does not seem to have rigorously predicable parameters. 5 AM, NOV 10th/96 Oops, forgot to mention carpets of Milky Way stars. There are many black and white photos, taken over the years, of backgdrops of Milky Way stars. An interesting thing about 3-D VIRTUAL STEREO viewing of such backdrop, reveals details not known otherwise about such backdrops. The backdrops or curtains, resolve into carpets. It is not as if you are looking into tunnels whose walls, ceilings, and floors are made of stars, rather it is as if you are looking over the surface, and all stars seen are below your horizontal plane of sight. How much of this is an illusion is hard to say. What can be said is that these stars are in huge banks of great density separated by narrow deep rifts of little or no density. In other words, there is far more star material because there is far more dust and clutter, than The is infered simply by banks counting the dots and rifts that comprise let you know the stars. that a greater mass density is there in the so- called backdrop material. NOV 11/96 - Finis - ============================================= NOV 8/96, 9:30 AM. Hold the horses. The whole business about criss-cross image switchero (left to right) (right to left) screetched in unsubtle claims with invisible bold face in NOV 7/96 descriptions, is bogus. It was an illustion seen by less developed viewing techniques. In fact, when a third image is opened up in the middle between two side by side images each of slightly different size and then the third created with the swift assistance of a large magnifying glass, when one, then the other eye is closed, two clear images re-appear comprising the two originals. It happens that one has been drawn to middle screen and thus seems inherently switched from (say) left to right position, but this is not true, more 'wish to know' honest observation proves that no switcheroo occurs, just a reasonable-to-understand shift, in the base positions of the two originals. For example the left side original image will appear exactly perfectly centered in midscreen, right in the center, right in the middle, in front of you, with no left side other image apparent, with the RIGHT eye closed, and similarly visa versa for a closed LEFT eye. Actual precise just double checked and tested in Netscape Gold's windows 95 browser, If I close the RIGHT eye, I see the RIGHT hand image absolute centered instead of to the right, and the left side to the left, and visa versa. It is the shift to centered position that caused the original minor momentary hysteria thinking that the two images had actually transposed (crisscrossed) their original rest state positions when seen in virtual stereo on screen. THAT, was an interesting symmetry situation for many hours. Otherwise the whole subject is a no-brainer. ============================================= NOV 7/96, the evening make note about fact that living room floor photo by merely superimposing of eyes had the corner of a cardboard box to the left was as if projecting out of the screen in front of the end of a slinky, whereas in single lens magnified view, the end of the slinky clearly was closer to the camera than was the corner of the box in the original living room. Element of distortion here. ============================================= NOV 7/96, 11:30 AM. -------------- it gets better -------------- There is no attempt to organize this update report into a dissertation. I am just typing the thoughts as they come to mind and forget language logic, the reports ad hoc are good enough to make their points, as is. GM. Helpful hint: The word 'duo' is used to refer to 2 photos or images of approximate same size, one about 13% smaller than the other, both made from a single non-stereo (or 'mono') photograph or image. This is to distinguish between traditional 3-D stereo technology in which two separate photographs, each having a slightly different frame at the left and right borders, are needed to create a stereoscopic image by any means in use in technology as of today, using photo images. This two-image prerequisite does not apply to recent laser technologies and the like. What is being discussed now as you read here about it is rendering a single 'mono' photo into a true stereoscopic 3-D image, using technology no more advanced than at home at a computer worktable using as assist a simple item found in the kitchen drawer. THE SUBJECT IS: 'VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO' FULL LARGE STEREO IMAGES FROM A SINGLE NORMAL PHOTOGRAPH, AND FLAT PLANE GRAPHIC DRAWINGS USING A LARGE MAGNIFYING GLASS TO REVEAL OBVERVATION showing RELEVANT NEW FACTS. NOTE: Reports written yesterday and included further below under: -------------- new 3-d stereo -------------- contain key words and buzz terms not described or defined in this current update of new test discoveries. START: SIDE In such single photo re-energizing into a true stereoscopic NOTE picture, the identical SAME FRAME is in use for both of the two photo copies, unlike tragictional er traditional stereo photography, in which the left-right border frame of either picture is slightly different and there is no change to the vertical scale of either of the two photos necessary to the result of a traditional stereoscopic panarama. These two parameters (dissimilar border, identical vertical height) are thought to be pre-requisites as the only way to gain 'stereo' images from photographs in traditional thinks which continue to this day throughout the technology of 3-D STEREOLOGY which is now the modern academic and disciplined name for this (stereoscopic) branch of physics and industry. Hence the word 'tragictional'. I couldn't resist. It only means to point out that a new way (existing there all along) is available to come to the same end, 3-D stereoscopics, with just a single mono picture, bypassing most of the current theories about stereo, long established, in one quick self evident glance at a remarkable phenomena. BEGIN: Forget what was discussed yesterday in terms of distortions, and difficulties of focus of two big postage stamp sized images of the SAME SINGLE PHOTO each scaled to slightly different horizontal and vertical sizing, displayed side by side on a comupter screen as computer generated graphic images from a single .JPG file rendered by a scnner into digits, and used twice to then, by staring at the computer screen, be overfocused by eyesight, until a third image was gained, in stereo, between the two other non-stereo images which could still be seen as 'mono' pictures on either side of the new and 'virtual' 3rd stereoscopic image. That was yesterday, in tests and descriptions that were wrapped up at 3:30 AM coming into NOV 7/96. In those tests it was found that it was not possible to focus two identical data points of an image that were separated wider than about 3 + inches, the width between a pair of human eyes. One 'resized-for-stereo' picture of a table with objects and a livingroom wall taken in a house last fall (1995) in Orleans (suburb just east of Ottawa) was as a pair large enough to fit in width across a computer screen when sitting side by side. No way could be found to bring these duo images into single stereo focus, including trying a pair of kids toy binocculars with just marginal magnification, and also cardboard sheet dividers to separate the duo images into just one seen by each eye. In each case tried, the eyes could simply not bring the duo images into single focus, as point source datas in each image were separated by more than 3 1/2 inches, a stretch too wide for the human eyes to accomodate in binoccular vision. Today as if this moment the scene here at home-test headquarters is entirely different. I am looking back in time into the living room in Orleans and seeing exactly the same scene I saw when looking through the view finder of a 110 mm camera, only this time, I am looking at the scene in STEREO! Instead of a mono picture seen with one eye through the one eye-port of the camera's viewfinder, I am seeing exactly the same thing as seen in the camera's view finder, except, once again, I have to say loudly, it is 100% STEREOSCOPIC. I am looking at L A R G E pictures, incidentally, in case you missed the main turn onto the freeway in the above last paragraph. I am using the formerly impossible duo views of a single photo, rendered with slight sizing differences in scale, and laid side by side to fill the WIDTH of the computer screen. In other words point source details are over 5 inches apart. And I can look at this image clearly without effort in full stereoscopic detail. Its details are authentic and correct, at least to a point where details distortions (if any) are too slight to notice. Here is how. .... but first, a new incerpt at 12:39 PM. I have just now been looking at two prints of the original in the living room of the house in Orleans, with a table with objects on it, and an abstract art painting on the back wall. I have a pair of XEROX color photocopies of the same photo laying flat in front of me. And have done a test. Two interesting things, and a third point of fact have just been observed by this test. The photos are standard photo lab (cheap commercial processing) size, prints roughly 3 3/4 by 5 1/2 inches. The original photo was passed through a new model XEROX color photocopy machine and ran through maximum enhancement settings and resulted in a much clearer, much brighter, much more detailed photos than the original. Praise to new XEROX technology, the inner re-digitalizing enhancement of the poor dark blurred original photo is rather amazing. Notwithstanding. A second image reduced in size by about 11% was made with the XEROX. Now, here's where it gets good. In tests done until closing the eyelids at 3:20 AM yesterday evening the two large XEROX 'prints' were an impossible situation, the photos were simply TOO large to do anything with regards stereo, except to lay them overlapping on the table and bring two salient details in the duo images close enough that they could be overfocused by the eyes, the two same details roughly 3 inches apart. The problem was that just a narrow strip of the photo could be brought into stereo and it was not enough wide to make study worth the time. PAUSE - go back to the two large photocopies in color! Today, moments ago, study was taking place in detail for all 4 sides of their image in full stereo. But 3 important things were immediately learned leading to optic properties in physics, refractions in imaging, and focusing parameters; using a giant magnifying glass whose cross sectional diameter is 5 inches across as a single lens that, suprisingly, works. 1. Final focus resolving the resultant image into stark stereo detail came with the magnifying glass held close to the face, and the apparatus (your face and the magnifying glass) moved toward the tabletop on which lay the two similar photos laid side by side. In rough say, the face was about 2 inches from the glass, and the glass about 6 inches or less from the photos on the tabletop. That is the parameterization of this particular focal tube array, hand held and managed without supports. 2. The image thus resolved, came in much under original size, rather than in much greater magnify. In other words the optics had conversed. The detailed stereo image had shrunk to attain the final result into stark 3-d stereo resolution. The resulting image was about 1/3 smaller in fact, or even slightly more reduced. It was hard to say for certain because a pair of magnificantly reduced fingertips inserted into the view to caliper the top to bottom width of the image, became giantly magnified the moment lifted up from the table top, then restored to normal size when taken out of the view field, all requiring some bit of deft in co-ordination to get an approximation of reduced size of the image, since the original size of the image with the glass taken away to look at the finger tips in caliper freeze hold, was still 4 3/4 inches. In rough guess, the stereo image under stereo view had reduced to about 3 1/2 inches in height top to bottom. Attempting the same caliper scaling with fingertips for gaining an estimate of the width of the stereo image in view proved impossible due to the presence of several fingers in view, not just two, and the 2 fingers most in view at the stereo image itself simply did not spread apart beyond a certain range, the caliper spread of these fingers could not reach across the horizontal to the two vertical borders of the image. NOTE: In this newly resolved scaling, that point source data details were about once again bringing the scene's true resultant resolution size into range 3 inches apart, between the 2 photos capable of being scoped by human eye balls sitting roughly 3 inches apart. Or, rather, about 3 1/2 inches apart. NOPE: I stand corrected. There are TWO images afloat and you can see both by easy adjustement of eyesight without changing the distance to the lens. The second image floats right on the top surface of the magnifying glass. It is indeed roughly 3 1/2 inches across (the human eyeball factor again), but down below there is a hugely magnified image which is the one you see in stereo. The main scene is greatly 'amplified' beyond the mono image floating on the surface of the lens even though the main scene is still substantially smaller than the duo photos' original sizes. People who have worked with photographic enlargers or other image optical systems such as viewplates of large industrial cameras are well aware of small images floating intact on a lens surface, or a view finder's flat face in a poster page sized commercial printer's large camera. However, in the floating flat image just seem the image is right side up, it is not turned top to bottom as is the case usually with standard optic lensings. 3. That art picture on the wall, with the red sun, has taken on other characteristics of note. It seems that the picture is back in place in full stereo back on the wall, but the large red round sun has separated again and is slightly back into the view frame of the painting. However other acts in the photo scene stayed true to form seemingly. For instance a large leaf of a household corn plant, arching over the front of the view several feet out from the table, and framing a small object sitting on the table, was there suspended out in space just as it was originally framed in the 110 mm camera view finder to give the picture extra artistic juice, with the small object centered on the table now plainly seen to be sitting about 1/8 of the way back from the front of the table, just as it should be. IN SUMMERY FOR THE THREE NOTICES 1-A The giant magnifying glass is close to the face in proportion to long distance to the surface being studied in stereo. 2-A In this test, the image in stereo is in converse magnification, it is de-magnified, in reverse. The image being studied in stereo was much smaller, in converse to being magnified, the shrink in approximate reverse proportion to the standard maximum magnification expected for this particular large piece of lenticular glass. 3-A Image separation marginally occurred for some aspects of the scene being studied in stereo. CHROMATIC ABBERATION - PERHAPS? It may be a fact of chromatic abberation. In chromatic abberation the color red tends to most separate from its rest state place in an original scene or image. If the giant magnifying glass has not been optically corrected for chromatic abberation at manufacture, this could account for the large red sun stepping back a slight distance into the art painting on the wall. -------------------------------------------------------- In original tests with images on a home PC WINDOWS 95 computer screen, leading to the above 3 point remarks, were first recorded and reported the following, using 2 large duo photos, laid side by side across the full width of the computer screen: The secret to getting such good stereo resolution is entirely in the multi-array focusing, between the distance of the eyes to a large magnifying lens, and the distance from the lens to a computer screen on which are displayed the screen-width duo photos side by side. Three levels of focusing combine to give excellent stereo resolution in result, the final step by only brief strain to overfocus the eyes looking within a magnified image within the giant field of the large magnifying glass. In moving the array and you, leaning closer to the screen, a point is reached where image focused by the glass begins to dissolve (go out of focus) and human overfocus takes over, you can move further in and keep overfocusing until a really sharp image suddenly resolves. This image will be more or less the size of the original duo photos superimposed, but the stereo details suddenly move and reform right out into the open. Like I say, as of this hour, I am looking back in time into the living room of a house in Orleans and seeing exactly the same scene I saw when looking through the view finder of a 110 mm camera. Only this time, I am looking at the scene in STEREO! TECHNICAL FACTS NOTE: The same as described below for a computer screen and its inherent smaller sized renderings of a photo, also applies for two copies of an identical photo in same size as original print, side by side on a tabletop, in this case one copy reduced 11 percent smaller by a XEROX color photocopier of recent vintage as already updated, in the above descripts. True stereo rending via LARGE duo images can be immediately achieved by use of a large magnifying glass. When the glass is pulled back it will go out of focus, but, in pulling it further back, it continues into cross focus, so that two images left-right get drawn together from either side to eventually 'combine' in new very blurred focus immediately and easily without strain superimposed as a single new image in the middle, with both originals still as singles on either side of the new third image. The new third image, initially blurred, is very easy to focus anew, by moving the magnifying glass slightly in, also refocusing with the eyes. In fact it is possible to adjust the position of the lens, and observer (you) into a range of sharp and precisely articulated image. Simply said, at the point where a large magnifying glass is pulled back and the image goes right out of focus, when pulling the glass further back the image actually overfocuses and begins to fold over, still blurred, the right side and left side folding over as two new images converging at the middle, which gradually enlarges in continuing a further pullback, until eventually the new field of view which opens up in the middle contains all of what could be originally seen in the left and right fields of view when the glass was in focus, with, now, the left and right fields still in view as per original, but seen now by turning the sight slightly to peer into the left side view and the right. The two views are still there, but now separated up the middle by a new third field of view which has opened up in the split via overfocusing of the target, as the now whole image as the center of the view plane. Nifty bit of optics, but 100% valid. Normally such blurr then cross focusing to produce a complete new spurious image is simply not wanted by makers and users who distinctly want to see stark details in original highly magnified single views. Oh but don't throw the magnifying glass's overplus problem away. It is exactly what we want, to demonstrate proof of concept of the existence of 3-D STEREOSCOPIC images, from 100% non-stereo image sources. A first immediate advantage is that larger photo images, too large for point source details in either image (of identical frames though of different horizontal and vertical scales in sizing), can be easily and quickly brought into stereoscopic focus by use of a large magnifying glass held up in front of the face and only a few inches out from the eyes. In obvious advantage of a further nature, larger images can be thus and so, easily focused, resulting in large images to look at. In unassisted eyesight, point source details between the duo images cannot be further apart than roughly 3 1/2 inches, the width of separation between a pair of human eyes. What is immediately noticed is that there is little if any distortion in the 3-D rendering of the lens focused image. That is, in small duo images focused by strain by over focusing eyesight, can be intrinsically distorted. Ie a picture (abstract art painting for example) on a back wall can be seen to be floating over a table instead of on the wall behind the table, and details in the floating picture can also separate in-to-out stereoscopically, which is not true to the original view taken by an original single photograph. In a MAGNIFYING GLASS enhanced Virtual 3-D image, in the same test view, the same abstract art painting is in correct place at the back on the wall behind the table, it is no longer floating, whereas objects on the table and the table itself are unquestionably stereoscopic, in true to life recreation of the original room setting in which the photo was originally taken. At least, it seems to be an authentic re-rendering of the room into 3-D stereoscopic view. All objects in the new view seem to be true to form, also original placement. Another detail easily observed in the advantages of large scale magnified viewports: An art picture hanging on a living room wall and featuring a large red sun, with abstract shapes surrounding, separated in tests reported yesterday just using human eyesight unaided, into a new form in which the large red sun was back into the plane of the picture with abstract shapes hanging in space in front of the Sun: in further detail study it was seen that the painting itself was projected foreward, hanging in space over a table, instead of in proper place on the wall behind the table. This suspension in space distortion of the painting itself, was not yet seen and not mentioned in yesterday evening's report of NOV 6/96, 11 MP. Now aspects of the 'float' yes seen by careful eyesight unaided, in a computer, and not seen by lens assist both in the computer screen version, and on larger table top version, using a giant single magnifying glass lens to amplify and seemingly optically correct aspects of imaging. It raises a further point. Is single lens imaging pre-reequisite for such stereo-izing optics? Or will a two-lens or multi-lens system work to better the overall optic abilities, for instance render images to true size to original, or even better, to magnify original images to any scale, like a microscope with new properties this time not a tiny view field but view fields the size of a room and larger, as large as the outdoors. Further tests and time to tell. How about TV in stereo, and motion pictures. All of these thorny 'not' yet technical problems now seem more mature. For instance, without question, stereo TV can now be demonstrated with a simple jolt of technical setup in advance, using for instance an ordinary film clip from, say, a major saga such as (say) any Star Trek movie. Technology already sits around waiting to be used to do a demo today. Right now. This afternoon. If means can be made to lay hands on that technology to produce the concept into the real world. ----------- subnote Nove 11 at 10:30 PM. A virus in a jetliner distaster movie is on and just for the heck of it I thought to try a large magnifying lens over the TV picture to see if it was stereo. It was, which I discovered with a hoop of surprise waking a half asleep other occupant in the living room. The surprise was how much stereo suddenly came into resolves after a great deal of trouble trying to get stereo re-focusing in the first place. In the first place, the cross sectional area of the 5 inch magnifying glass lens was very small compared to the cross section area of the 28 inch TV. When re-focusing was finally achieved, it happened that a black and white cartoon ad was in progress so focus had to be held on faith for a moment until true picture reappeared, and then the whoop a second later, because it was an outdoor scene looking past buildings to a distant vista that opened up in full color in stereo for a moment, then a big face with pock marks snapped into place on the screen and stereo was a mute point as a long sequence of headcuts arguing dominated the plot of the movie. The second problems was that action on TV itself was so fast paced that there was little time to focus correctly on a stable object to get stereo into view. It turned out that the magnifying lens ended up very close to the screen, only several inches away, and the pixels of the screen itself could be counted they were so big in their thin black borders. Notwithstanding, it was possible to still focus on dominate areas in the image and ignore the pixels. The result overall was a blurry picture but definately stereo. The eyes hurt from the strain after just a moment and the test was abandoned. But, STEREO TV exists, right in your very own living room and has been sitting there ready to realize all along. Now you know. GM. The previous topic resumes.... Having fun for an afternoon in a commercial TV station's studio is about as easy as it can get, done today. The technology already exists in the studio, all it needs is to be assembled in the right way to do the demo. Too cameras taking image of the same film clip, projected on two small screens side by side and viewed through giant lenses in over focus way, will give the stereo. ----- footnote append Nov 11 4:27 AM It now seems likely that a single film clip image will produce handsome stereo using two giant lenses for viewing. -------------------------------------------- NOV 7/96, 5 PM. ------------------- it gets even better ------------------- Another test has just been done. This one is a little different for two reasons. The image tested is an artistic redering of a Cube and Sphere (like a Rubic's Cube rotated 45 degrees on two different axis so that a six sided hexagram profile appears, with one of the points of the Cube the centerpoint of the drawing). (If a real Rubic's Cube was being held in hand, the centerpoint corner would be projecting straight toward your face in projecting from the center point of the object). In the piece of art, the three equalateral diamond faces visible were each in a different primary color, and a central sphere cut out so that a hole opened into the cube interior where a smaller proportionately identical cube was colored, such that a stereo projection was simulated (in no way true stereo the drawing was 100 percent mono). This particular piece of art happened to have been digitalized by scanner a week ago by two different individuals and scanners for display onscreen in an Internet Home Page (the FARSTAR Home Page). The second scan happened to be done with as low a byte count as possible to experimentally see how it looked on screen with such low overhead, 5k, compared to 37k for the other. The result was distinct differences in the colors between the two scans when displayed on screen, the low kilobyte version being in fact slightly psychedelic or shimmered in highlight texture rather than the other (37k) which seemed dull, though far more authentic in dense body of the solid colors. And here is what happened. Something NEW was learned, because of the clear cut difference in color tone and texture between the two images displayed on screen. A test was just done, displaying the two side by side to fill as much of the width of the computer screen as possible bearing in mind that the width limit was decided by the height of the screen itself. In this test, the larger byte image (duller) was on the left side, and the lower byte image (brighter) on the right, both centered with the hypertext command to sit in pair side by side, the duller image wider (elongated toward looking like a pumpkin), the brighter image to the right of normal size in width and height. At once the two images jumped together into one, when the giant magnifying glass was held up in place in front of the face and I moved back. Because the two images displayed are so stark and bright and their major salient features so plain, a stereo focus using the giant magnifying glass of diameter 5 inches caused the two images to slide over atop each other and join as one almost with a snap, the merging took place so quickly. And then, just a bit of adjusting of the face and glass lens artifacts in the mechanics, to resolve the blurred middle image into one single stark and detailed stereo scene dominating the entire viewing area in the giant lens. What do you think was seen? Three things. The miniature cube supposedly floating in the middle in the single image original stereo simulation, hand drawn, was seen to be tucked right back into the rear cornice deep within a center cavity opening into the Cube and Sphere. However, the pumpkin shaped horizontal elongation of the left side version had an ellipse instead of a circle as an opening thus the offcammed conjoint of ellipse and circle merged together into stereoscopic one resulted in the opening been seen as a stereoscopic circle tilted with its opening face tilted up, to perfectly in fact represent the true opening as if a 'hole' had actually been cut as a slice across an end corner of a Rubic's Cube. But all of this is just gist with some justice. Here is the real news. The two images are left-to-right criss-crossed to form the single stereo result. It is exactly as are the left and right hemispheres of the brain criss crossed - vision from the left eye responds in response areas in the right side of the brain, and visa versa. -------- Footnote Nov 11/96 4:26 AM. As pointed out further above all remarks about criss cross are bogus, the phenomena does not exist in current tests. The same criss cross is true for this new brand of stereo imagizing now being reported as I type. In closing the right eye, the right-side image in the original display is now seen with the LEFT eye. And in closing the left eye, the left-side image is now seen by the right. No border blurr, no overlaps, each separate one-eye image is stark and in detail isolated on its own. The (brighter) image placed on the right was seen intact on its own with the LEFT eye, when the right eye was closed, and the (duller) image was seen with the (single) right eye. The two images had completely switched positions, relative to left-right symmetry, except, the switched image was more or less in center stage, with the other either to the left, or right, for instance when seen with the LEFT eye, the right hand image was more or less in center stage, and the original left hand image was now offstage (see by peeking sideways) all the way over to the right hand of the symmetry array. Its a new variation of the old shell game; which shell has the stereo, and how did the shell with the dull top sitting to the left of the other two, end up on the right. A criss cross symmetry has occurred in optical mechanics. -------------------------------------------- NOV 7/96, 8 PM. Hold the phone. In the enthusiasm in writing about the tests that yielded brand new image criss-cross information something else was learned. Forget about previous brandishments regards virtual stereo image focusing through the single giant magnifying glass into resolve that was proportionately UNDERSIZED in inverse reciprocal to about how much an image is normally magnified by this lens. In fact, during the cris-cross event I was looking at images blown to giant size, more than twice the size of normal. What happened to change the previous perception? Technique. It turns out that the small inverse proportionate image comes into detailed stereo focus within a very small range of movements, whereas a larger image stays partially resolved over a very large range of movement, in which there is a very small focal range combination that resolves the sight into starkly detailed focus. It is easy to pass through general blurr at any long distance of your face from the target, when moving the lens slowly in and out by hand. Discovering there is a narrow band of hard focus within the wide band of movement to attain giant image 3-D stereoscopic enlargement, means that an image's magnification is a fact of physics. The images I played with (the two different digital renderings of the open cut Cube and Sphere) grew to more than twice original size and resolved unblurred. One proviso, is that at extreme enlargement, effects of dissimilar magnification around the rim of the lens became apparent. In smaller images, original size, or smaller, effects of the thinner glass toward the edge of the rim of the lens were not noticed. ============================================ NOV 6/96, 11 PM. -------------- new 3-d stereo -------------- THE SUBJECT IS: 'VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO' FULL STEREO IMAGES FROM A SINGLE NORMAL PHOTOGRAPH
On Nov. 5/96, while preparing photographs for link display in the Farstar Home Page an idea occurred that proved its juice and was demonstrated to a witness within 5 minutes of gendering the idea into testable format via the computer. It worked perfectly, 1st time tried. Three more tests and the stereo image now has a foreground which projects out of the screen as well. It is true 100% stereo created from a single ordinary color photograph. How, will not be disclosed until after the patent documents are wrapped. It is one of those kind of discoveries. Its principles are so clean to the point they cannot be argued. Claim is dated 11:20 PM, Nov 5/96. GREYDON MOORE. ---------------------------------- Patent perhaps notes: passed on to a patent laywer on the next day. Results of an experiment which began at 8:30 pm nov 5, 1996 and was finished with proof of concept at 8:35 pm, 5 minutes later. --------------------------------------------------------------- THE PRINCIPLE OF: 'VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO' If a single photograph is digitally resized in two separate photographs, one photograph having a different WIDTH than the other, the result will HAVE to be a stereo presence of some kind, because of the fact that: Background (smaller) details will resize in a slightly less rate of scale than the foreground (larger) objects, resulting in 100% 3-D stereo when the two images are viewed as a left and right pair, each image viewed with only one eye. 3-D stereo is instantly achieved, when two photos of slightly different horizontal size are imaged in a WINDOWS browser and are of sufficient small size that the eyes are able to over-focus in such a way that overlay occurs to make a fully stereo 3-D image in the middle, plus two flat images (the two originals), one on either side of the stereoscopic third image. A further test was conducted shortly after to experimentally deterimine an immediately arrised assumption that changing the vertical component between the two photographs should result in an image shifted further inward, or further outward, from the base viewing platform ie. the surface of the computer screen being used for the experiments. Change in layer perception did result, the results discussed further below in: Verifying 'Principles' of Virtual 3-D Stereo. Similar results will consequence by any viewing means which effectively separates the two images in a way in which each eye sees only one picture. A cardboard divider between the two images will work to afford the correct needed separation, for instance. In this more general form, the images to form stereo can be of any size since the separation of the human eyeballs (roughly 3 + inches) is not a factor to achieve the superimposure by over-focusing of the eyes. Later subnote: the cardboard divider ploy was an assumption that failed the test later. SUBSET DISCUSSION Immediate stereo focusing is achieved by human eyesight in any device in which the whole of the image is focused. But in any setting where there is a frame surrounding the image, two pictures side by side in a magazine for example, the eyes have to over-focus by will beyond the frame to superimpose the two images correct to get stereo. This is difficult for many people, easy for others. Computer generated 3-D images appearing in Weekend comic sections of daily newspapers use the 'frame present' over-focus means to achieve 3-D image, and some readers just can't get it. This is an example of a stereo artifact with 2 frames present. Image separation by a DIVIDER is certainly not new, even 3-D ViewMasters sold as kids toys for generations use exactly this property to achieve its sales. In these ViewMasters, no frame is present, the eyes see the whole of perception as a stereo image and everyone using a View Master sees instant stereo effortlessly. What is new (and the purpose of this disclosure document) is ACHIEVING STEREOSCOPIC 3-D IMAGES FROM A SINGLE NON-STEREO PICTURE regardless of how the end product is 'viewed' to achieve its stereoscopic nature. APPLICATIONS OF: 'VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO' Television, and motion pictures, as well as rendering any existing photograph that has depth (albiet flat) image in the picture, are unquestionable patent domains for this 'Virtual 3-D Stereo' discovery. In fact, it turns out, now that the principle is 'unmasked' and the 'secret' is out, that any photograph can also be resized by normal photographic tenchiques of an enlarger to make two prints of slightly different horizontal and vertical variations in (cammed) sizes. Digitalizing is not needed exclusively to produce 3-D photos from a single non-stereo original. Later subnote: In fact Xerox color photocopies are excellent to use, with the advantage that such single images can be modified by both expansion or contraction in multiple copies to suit. THE VALIDITY OF: 'VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO' Upon completion of a first test regards idea, an immediate feature was noted: this is that the stereoscopic image DID NOT DISTORT. This means as follows: Say that an original photo has a street scene with a large house and a car parked in front a way down near the end of the next block. Distortion would be in the house being right up front, (being initially larger) and the car (being smaller) still a way down at the end of the next block. This kind of distortion did not occur. The house and car will both be small objects well in the background relative to larger (nearby objects) in the photo, and the changing of size of the rear objects relative to foreground objects remains true to scale to produce a genuine and authentic stereoscopic reproduction when two photos are thus used, when, for example, two were actually used, one with a slightly smaller width then the other, both photos created after the fact of a single original, by computer graphic scaling factors simply done by the avails of a rock bottom bare bones ordinary hypertext program that was run locally in the FILES browser of NETSCAPE GOLD on a WINDOWS 95 home PC computer. THERE IS A DISTORTION A 3rd digitalized photograph, SONIC3.JPG, has a flat painting in a picture frame on a living room wall over a table on which sit several hand made sonic distrupter devices, and leaves of a large corn household plant hang in the foreground. What is uniquely interesting is that objects in the flat painting have ALSO become STEREO, a very intriguing effect. It proves proof of concept another way, that such stereoizing as turning a painting in a museum into stereo separate details, is quite remarkable. It seems, in the rather poor grainy and darkish digital photo made from a poor quality color 110 photograph, that objects in the painting are flat even though separated in stereo planes. That is, a red sun (circle) is further deep into depth beyond other objects, but the perception, of what can be seen in the onscreen example, is that the sun further back is not spherical like a balloon, rather it is flat like a disk. VERIFYING PRINCIPLES OF: 'VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO' A few tests were next done to experiment with changes in the height of one, then the other, of the two computer generated photographs, to test an assumed pre-conclusion that differences in the scale of HEIGHT between the two photos will result in a stereoscope picture moved further back into the viewscreen, or brought further foward so as to seem out in space in toto. It was found that both dimensional changes were valid, except that rather than the whole picture moving intact more in, or more further out in the computer viewscreen, in the case of the foreward projection test, objects in the foreground were seen to become projected out into space at the front of the picture, but not as separate disconnected entities since the image itself is still surrounded by a picture frame. Nevertheless the illusion is as if foreward projection is occurring out into space beyond the flat surface plane of the frame itself. In other words some foreward projecting imagery marginally seemed to float in space. This is remarkable. Concidering the source is a single mono photo. VIEWING POTENTIAL ----------------- In larger scale sizing and imaging it is concievable that imagery can be made to come up alongside a viewer or even to wrap behind, to become seen in periferal place rather than in direct frontal focusing only. In which case the forward ie leading lower edge of the 'FRAME' will seem to come foward underneath the observer, and the upper frame will seem to pass behind, overhead. Perhaps. PROVISO ------- This would be in setting where the viewable image is large enough to take up the whole of one's perception; in a TV virtual reality helmut, for instance, or on a very large screen in a motion picture theater. Do not expect periferal stereo 3-D behind the viewer from a normal TV screen, or a photograph rendered into two resized images for reprint in a magazine. As long as an external frame of reference larger than the image is present, periferal and rear view mirrow presence might not be expected. -----------subnote NOV 11/96 7:15 PM Practice leads to events. After 6 days of practice it is found that 3-D focus can be done with a large magnify lens over each eye. The trick was to figure out how to instruct the brain to focus since the focal mechanism is different, but it worked. In Fact three like images side by side, the one in the mid smaller, also worked but oh what a job juxtapositioning subjects, there were 5 images across the scene. And yet, overall, the best stereo is still with a single lens and single mono picture and focusing taking place a way back from the subject, at 7 or 8 times usual magnifying lens distance. ========================================================= THE PARAMETERS OF: 'VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO' --------------------------------------- The file STEREO.HTM contains the demo, and proof of concept. Simply loading the file in a WINDOWS computer browser, and superimposing the two side-by-side images (each of slightly different horizontal and vertical size) into one image in the middle betwen two others, by simply overfocusing the eyes, will result in an instant, an awareness that stereoscopic 3-D image is achieved. There can be no arguement. Do not forget this stereo image has come from just ONE original photograph that was in all ways normal and flat without a slightest smidgeon of stereo presence. Stereo is impossible from a picture taken with a normal 110 camera. Stereo pictures are typically thought to require (by well established laws of physics) TWO pictures, taken from two cameras or lenses separated in space by a significant distance, and the two pictures used to result in a single stereo scene when presented for viewing in such a way that the two separatedly photographed pictures can be focused into a single image by human eyesight, in keeping with the physics principles of human binoccular vision. FLAWED TECHNIQUES ----------------- There is one noticable flaw to two-camera two-picture stereo, and that is that both pictures do not sit in the same frame, there is a blurred margin (so to speak) in which 'vertical' edges of one photo are shifted over slightly with respect to the other so that stereo 3-D does not occur in that strip of edge. And no attempt is made to change the vertical HEIGHT of one photo, relative to the other. In fact if the innactive edges of the photos for two-photo two-camera images are cut away so that both photos have the same datas touching each of the vertical edges, hence the same frame, then the resulting pictures are no different than a single picture resized by technical means and the stereoscopic result is the same as now being described in this paper. HOWEVER, THE DOGMA ------------------ Stereo without two separated photographs taken by camera is unheard of and is thought to be impossible. This is not true. All that is required is to change the pre-concieved idea of what it takes to achieve two stereo-resulting pictures. It does not matter if the two pictures came from a single non- stereo original. The basic physics theory presumptions have been wrong in concluding that only two separately taken photographs, each relative to the concept of what each eye must see, can work. That part of the theory is wrong. Proof of concept is achieved by just one original photograph, proving that part of the old theory is wrong. It is as simple as that. TECHNICAL MATTERS ----------------- The STEREO.HTM file contains proof of concept, and is loaded in any WINDOWS browser and displays two .jpg files: SONIC2.JPG SONIC2.JPG Two 'resized' images of Sonic2.jpg were loaded in an original hypertext program file named STEREO.HTM to go straight to discovery in 5 minutes. In other words: the Sonic2.jpg file was used to 'discover' the stereo principle. The Sonic2.jpg file was then used to further demonstrate proof of concept by causing imagery to project 'forward' from the foreground, verifying that there are a set of principles, with variable properties. How many Principles and Properties are there in total? Who can say at this early time. The 'Virtual Stereo' parameters demonstrated in STEREO.HTM are: IMAGE 1; WIDTH= HEIGHT= (+) IMAGE 2; WIDTH= (+) HEIGHT= which means IMAGE 1 is stretched vertically relative to IMAGE 2, and IMAGE 2 is elongated horizontally relative to IMAGE 1, relative to a standard in which both IMAGES 1 and 2 are of identical scale (in which no stereoscopic image is possible) so that IMAGE 2 is both wider than, and shorter than, IMAGE 1 although it does not matter which image is shorter, or wider, it only matters that both images are cammed (distorted) relatative to two side-by-side images of identical size. DEMONSTRATION'S SIZING FACTORS ------------------------------ Here are the sizing factors used in a hypertext file to create the stereo image achieved by superimposure of two small images (with all features roughly 3 inches apart) by overfocusing of the human eyes in two images displayed in the NETSCAPE GOLD browser in a WINDOWS 95 computer to result in a sterescopic vision. Just a simplest of hypertext program (without Header or Footer) and using just the brief hypertext strings shown further below, was all that was needed to run the hypertext program locally through NETSCAPE GOLD to verify proof of concept. WINDOWS 95 was the driver but this is incidental. Used was a single .jpg file named SONIC2.JPG (a photograph of a living room showing an array of apparatus layered over an area 1/3 of a living room floor. The array being 6 sided was focused to a rear corner where sat a 28 inch TV set on a small glass top coffee table. The original photograph was VERTICAL. In the hypertext strings shown immediately below, the resulting image was intially resized as a single photo to become a new HORIZONTAL photograph, with an interesting result: that the horizontal distorting elongation partially resolves in stereoscopic form into a valid change of perception where the observer seems to be closer to the floor and looking straight ahead to the array slightly below the horizontal plane of vision, but streched width-wise as if seen through a wide angle lense that distorts, the width-wise stretch more noticable close up front in 3-D. A TV set in the back corner stretched to 1/3 more of its original size by horizontal elongation, using photo SONIC2.JPG, (switched from original vertical photograph reshaped to a horizontal photograph), does not change in orientation or position, it remains just the same, still elongated width-wise to the same degree. A second photograph, SONIC1.JPG, a normal horizontal, when resized for 'Virtual 3-D stereo' remains true to form, all objects in the photo remain authentically true to life of original sizes of objects in the original living room in terms of both size and orientations. More or less if resizing is ratio pure for width and height. Shrunk, in other words, like a negative through an enlarger. A PROPERTY OF: 'VIRTUAL 3-D STEREO' There is an interesting 'property', in that the original vertical photograph was taken from the height of a 3-step kitchen household ladder and so is well up in the air, looking down on the whole array going back into the rear corner of the living room as a narrow tall photograph absent the perspective of true width in the living room, a perspective remarkably regained (though not 100% truly correct) in the resizing of the photo from vertical to horizontal, and further changing it into 'virtual 3-D stereo' format, and further changing it into forward projection formula. Here follows the strings used in a simple hypertext program named STEREO.HTM that both demonstrated STEREO from a non-stereo source, and verified 'proof of concept' in one single test. NOTE: the first original test of similar strings did not have vertical sizers, the original strings used the same HEIGHT=130, but used WIDTH=180 for one photo, and WIDTH=160 for the other photo. hypertext test program: ------------------------------------this version projects out of screen



---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-D forward projection results from the differences in height. 3-D stereoscopic image per se results from the differences in width. in which the WIDTH ended up reduced by a ratio of 1.125 and the HEIGHT ended up reduced by a ratio of 1.107. ------------ AND FINALLY: Here are the original two strings first used to make the 'discovery': Since both images are of similar height, the MIDDLE= hypertext command was not needed to have the two images appear side-by-side onscreen. QUICK HISTORY ------------- It happened by luck that the original sizing numbers typed in happened to be more or less perfect to allow the two small resulting images to be EASILY superimposed by over-focusing eyesight on the computer screen. The numbers were chosen by intuitive guess, expecting a round of tests to try to find a right sizing. As it happened, the very first numbers typed for width worked best of all, since the resulting 2 images appeared side by side with all details roughly 3 inches apart. Its nice when intuition lends such a helping hand in such a direct way. No time wasted. Finished: Nov 6, 1996 3:20 AM. Created by: Greydon Moore. Birthday: March 16, 1939. ============================================ NOV 6/96, 9 PM. ----------------------------------------------------- 3_D stereo images from a single non-stereo photograph ----------------------------------------------------- This is the initial report, initial hand written notes written in a hurry to get some original thoughts out of the way prior to new thoughts leading to new observations, new proof of concept demonstrations, reported above in the NOV 6/96, 11 PM description, then further again in the NOV 7/96, 11:30 AM update. ============================================ NOV 5/96, 9 PM. ----------------------------------------------------- HOW TO GET 3-D STEREO FROM A SINGLE NORMAL PHOTOGRAPH ----------------------------------------------------- Is this the first disclosure? Is this a discovery'? Who knows if it is, credit the FARSTAR Home Page and its creator Greydon Moore, who thought of it, tried it, and it worked perfectly first time tried. The sudden realization occurred after a mishap in sizing 3 colored photos for display via a LINK in FARSTAR's Home Page (Newsound experiment photos). One of the photos was a vertical, and 2 were horizontal. However all 3 were given the same WIDTH= and HEIGHT= sizing in a .HTM hypertext file. The result was that the 'vertical' photo came up displayed elongated in a stretch horizontally. Not a bad result in that the original photo intended to get an experimental array of apparatus spread out over a third of a living room floor, and the vertical photo was taken to include a TV set in the back corner of the living room. The horizontally elongated display in the hypertext file worked in a giving of appearance of the wide spread of the apparatus across the width of the living room floor, even though the TV set in the background was about 1 1/2 times its normal width. Otherwise not a bad effect at all. The .HTM file was immediately uploaded to the FARSTAR webserver as a NEWSOUND.HTML file link active at once on the FARSTAR Home Page. This is about at 4 PM Tuesday afternoon NOV 5/96. The elongation of the photo meant that objects were both flattened, and stretched wide sideways. If a cicrle had been in the original photo and living room, it would now look like a pumpkin or rather exactly as an ellipse. Then the light dawned. If the sizing width was changed on a second image of the same photograph, the horizontal size of the smaller items in the background would not change to the same degreee as would upfront foreground objects. Even small objects in the background would follow in favor, since individual details would change very much, relative to smaller proportionate change in details even for large objects up front in the photo. At 8:30 PM Tuesday a single test was done, taking only five minutes to create the .HTM file with two small images side by side displayed on the computer screen in the NETSCAPE GOLD browser. The moment the .HTM file with the two dissimilar sized .JPG photo files was brought up in the local browser, and the two images visually superimposed by overfocusing the eyes enough to merge two distinct spots for each image, and bingo! There it was, full 3-D. Even better in that the sprayed out effect of the array across the livingroom floor looked even more authentic to the original (as if you got down on your hands and knees and looked at it from that angle (that perspective)). Except for the extra wide TV in the back corner of the living room, it still looks about 1 1/2 wider than normal. At 9:15 PM Tuesday evening another test was done, this time resizing a normal horizontal photo to appear side by side, one slightly larger than the other. Again 100% 3-D stereo. This time, all objects in the stereo picture seemed to be normal in scale, one to another. It is surmized that by changing the HEIGHT slightly on one or another of the duo images, control can be gained to both bring the stereo picture forward into space or sent it back further into space. The basic set of possible variables for sizing a duo pair for 3-D stereo are: IMAGE 1 W= H= IMAGE 2 W= (+) H= IMAGE 2 W= (+) H= (+) IMAGE 1 W= H= (+) THE PRINCIPLES In changing the width, the smaller objects in the the background change disproportionately more than the larger objects of the foreground. The result can only be self evident: instant stereo. Greydon Moore 10:15 PM NOV 5/96 Bill Clinton has just been re-elected, the news not 5 minutes ago as Dole succeeded defeat live on TV. MORE TESTS: IMAGE 1 W= H= IMAGE 2 W= (-) H= (-) produced an image further back in the screen. IMAGE 1 W= (-) H= IMAGE 2 W= H= (-) produced an image with foreground objects projecting forward into space. STEREO.HTM, now STEREO1.ORG, was the original demonstration file of 100% stereo from a 100% non-stereo normal photograph. - finis - By: Greydon Moore Creator and Webmaster of FARSTAR Home Page - (now dissolved). greydie@look.com