Macro-photography

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Martin Connelly on 28/05/2020 17:35:46:

I had not trouble viewing the 3D image, too much messing about with SIRDS.

Martin C

.

After my recent faux pas … I am hesitant about even suggesting this:

Given that SIRDS are designed to be parallel-viewed: Is it possible that Neil’s description of his viewing technique [relax and cross your eyes so the two planet images overlap in the middle] is wrong ?

… AdrianR’s comment would seem to support this hypothesis.

MichaelG.

[awaiting incoming fire]

.

**LINK**

http://www.colorstereo.com/_cs1-2/pg-sirds.html#QuickPractice

[Enough!Participant @enough]

No problem Michael !

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Martin Connelly on 28/05/2020 17:35:46:

I had not trouble viewing the 3D image, too much messing about with SIRDS.

SIRDS …. I'd forgotten about those. I could always drop straight in (parallel viewing again). I just tried some on a web site and find i still can (drop straight in) so all is not lost after all.

[ Years ago, my sister could always see them easily but her husband could not however hard he tried. He always swore that we were putting him on – that the whole thing was a huge joke at his expense. He got quite grumpy about it. Then one day he saw it. The look on his face was unbelievable! ]

[Sam StonesParticipant @samstones42903]

As always Michael, another excellent contribution.

In contrast, I can’t do parallel, but cross-eyed is instantaneous. It could also be how I view the world. I did switch the diatom images L/R R/L in Photoshop, and had some difficulty (with cross-eyed viewing) to get the 3D effect. Is there something special about the lighting?

SIRDS, (I had to look it up Bandersnatch) often took my eye/brain several seconds before the depth (3D) materialised.

With so much cross-eyed practice of side-by-side pictures, I had, (for the kids and those not in the know) I had the irritating ability to ‘see’ all the differences in ‘Spot the difference’ pictures.

**LINK**

When the two images are one above the other, it’s necessary to turn them around for side-by-side viewing. Sort of gives the game away a bit.

The effect is curious in that the eye/brain (interplay?) cause the differences to twinkle – on and off.

Sam

PS – I’ve forgotten who ‘asked’, but it’s also possible I went for the circuit (PCB) layout because of its shallowness, needing little attention to DOF other than stopping down to f/16. The nylon screw and the capacitor next to it are blurring slightly. While f/32 was the smallest aperture certain voices in my head would be saying “Refraction!”

Edited By Sam Stones on 28/05/2020 23:33:44

[Sam StonesParticipant @samstones42903]

Michael, I've just had another look at Saul's first pair of images and they (eventually) materialised. With egg on my face, I'm puzzled as to why they take longer than most other pairs I view.

Any clues?

Sam

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi Sam, I finally saw your circuit board unaided yesterday, but only on my phone, can't make it happen on my laptop or my tablet. It happened quite by accident actually, as I was looking at it on my phone, I looked at the rim of my coffee mug on the table and it appeared in the bottom of my view. It took a bit of practice to see it directly, but soon got the hang of it. However I was surprised that once I had mastered seeing the image, I could blink even several times and the image still remained in view and I could look at all three images one at a time, provide that I didn't focus properly on the two real images. Your circuit board image is, however more impressive with the stereoscope lenses. I can even see the glass slide images that I have in free-view where I've made them side by side, but again only on my phone. I don't think I looking at these with a cross-eyed viewing though.

Regards Nick.

Edited By Nicholas Farr on 29/05/2020 07:17:11

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Sam Stones on 28/05/2020 23:43:33:

Michael, I've just had another look at Saul's first pair of images and they (eventually) materialised. With egg on my face, I'm puzzled as to why they take longer than most other pairs I view.

Any clues?

Sam

.

An early morning, caffeine-deficient, first thought :

Saul’s image pair features a very ‘strong’ stereo effect; which means it appears close to the viewer, and requires greater than usual convergence of the eyes … It may simply be that [when viewing that pair] you are near the limit of your physical eye-crossing ability.

It’s also worth noting that this is a ‘synthetic’ pair of images, generated by the stacking software, and not from two independent optical paths … Exactly how this magic is performed is beyond my comprehension, but I suspect it may introduce some hurdles in the viewing process.

MichaelG.

[jaCK HobsonParticipant @jackhobson50760]

The birds couldn't finish breakfast.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Wonderful shot, Jack !!

MichaelG.

[Colin HeseltineParticipant @colinheseltine48622]

Another few attempts with the NiSI lens.

The slight breeze makes it difficult to keep the bit you want in focus.

Have obtained set of Meike (Nikon Fit) macro extension lens, 12mm, 20mm and 36mm. Not fitted to camera yet.

What sort of magnification will these give individually or in conjunction with one another?

Colin

Edited By Colin Heseltine on 29/05/2020 13:31:03

[Raymond GriffinParticipant @raymondgriffin40985]

Unable to find crystal as 3D pair, perhaps try this pair. Shows a white blood cell adhering to the wall of a blood vessel in scanning electron microscope. Photos labelled left and right. If it works, I can send others. Ray G Top is right lower left

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Colin Heseltine on 29/05/2020 13:28:50:

[…]

Have obtained set of Meike (Nikon Fit) macro extension lens, 12mm, 20mm and 36mm. Not fitted to camera yet.

What sort of magnification will these give individually or in conjunction with one another?

Colin

.

I’m afraid there is no simple answer to that one if you're using a zoom lens, Colin

First … May I assume that you mean extension tubes, not lens ?

Their behaviour with a simple lens can be easily computed from the formula

1/u + 1/v = 1/f

But a complex zoom lens not only has an infinite number of values for f , but may also have variation in where the nodal points lie … so you will probably need to do your own experiments.

Have fun

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Raymond Griffin on 29/05/2020 13:47:32:

Unable to find crystal as 3D pair, perhaps try this pair. Shows a white blood cell adhering to the wall of a blood vessel in scanning electron microscope. Photos labelled left and right. If it works, I can send others. Ray G Top is right lower left

.

Many thanks, Raymond

… Those should do very nicely for set-up purposes

Keep ‘em coming, please.

MichaelG.

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Raymond Griffin on 29/05/2020 13:47:32:

Unable to find crystal as 3D pair, perhaps try this pair. Shows a white blood cell adhering to the wall of a blood vessel in scanning electron microscope.

Super kewl Raymond !

[Raymond GriffinParticipant @raymondgriffin40985]

Another pair showing the JEOL JSM35 microscope that I used to take these stereo pairs. Please let me know if they are coming out well and how you are dealing with them. Ray G Top is right lower is left

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Quick test using the iPad …

I can easily free-view these:

MichaelG.

.

.

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi Raymond, the white blood cell was difficult and I can only see it for a couple of moments. The lab one I had to put these on opposite sides to what you said, when I viewed them with your left and right, the background is in front. Both very impressive though.

Regards Nick.

[Sam StonesParticipant @samstones42903]

Lots of great pictures and lots to learn.

Again, this is not macro Raphael.

For those who can ‘do’ cross-eyed, I thought I’d try another slant along the stereo branch. [There could be a pun in there somewhere.]

Over the years, having gone through iterations of moving the camera and/or small objects around, it became clear that rotating the object on its vertical axis was a better option. (I feel sure this would be obvious to those into microscopy etc?)

However, it occurred to me that the CAD viewing package I have, might allow me to manoeuvre my skeleton clock file. The original file is quite ancient, and the CAD viewer ‘knows’ this. It always opens my files with a typical reminder of the fact.

After a bit of fiddling, I ‘rediscovered’ the X, Y, Z manipulation device that allows rotation of the image about any (or all) axes.

Chancing getting it right first time resulted in this.

When viewed, it became clear that the respective image differences are not so much position, but artefacts from the outlines and the ‘false’ reflections from simulated metal.

Your persistence payed off Nick. The above should jump out.

Good viewing guys.

Sam

PS – Take a look at the posts and the interest. Brilliant subject Raphael.

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi Sam, I can see your clock almost instantly, very impressive. However, I also viewed it with my stereoscopic lenses and like Raymond's one that MichaelG has stitched together, the background comes to the foreground. So I swapped your clock images round just as I did with Raymond's lab images and when viewed with my stereo lenses I get a proper view, now unlike Raymond's lab view, I can see your clock in a proper view without the stereoscopic lenses with the images on either side of each other, which now confuses me why this happens.

Regards Nick.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Nicholas Farr on 30/05/2020 09:14:10:

Hi Sam, I can see your clock almost instantly, very impressive. However, I also viewed it with my stereoscopic lenses and like Raymond's one that MichaelG has stitched together, the background comes to the foreground. So I swapped your clock images round just as I did with Raymond's lab images and when viewed with my stereo lenses I get a proper view, now unlike Raymond's lab view, I can see your clock in a proper view without the stereoscopic lenses with the images on either side of each other, which now confuses me why this happens.

Regards Nick.

.

I am bewildered by what you have described there, Nick

For the sake of my sanity … could you please give some detail of your “stereoscopic lenses“

Do you mean a conventional Holmes type ‘Stereoscope’ or something trickier ?

MichaelG.

.

Ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 30/05/2020 11:51:45

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi MichaelG, sorry if I've bewildered you, I've probably been using the wrong terminology and yes I believe I do mean stereoscope, probably associated the word with something else when I did a search for what they were called. I did put a picture of them on page six of this thread, I believe they were my grandfather's, due to there age but could have been my father's as he may have got them when he was in France for a while.

Regards Nick.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Thanks for the clarification, Nick

The reason I asked whether it might be something trickier was that I couldn’t understand how you might successfully view a cross-eyed pair using any ordinary Stereoscope … They are all inherently what I loosely call ‘parallel-viewing’ in that the eyes are not crossed.

However : Re-reading, more carefully, what you wrote to Sam … I think all you were saying is that [like me, but unlike Sam] you free-view ‘parallel’

An easy to confirm this would be to print the two pairs of Raymond’s images that I posted, to a suitable scale, and view them with the Stereoscope … then check that the effect is the same when you free-view them.

Likewise, you could do the same with Sam’s pair of the clock.

Forgive me if I am rambling

MichaelG.

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 30/05/2020 15:29:41:

However : Re-reading, more carefully, what you wrote to Sam … I think all you were saying is that [like me, but unlike Sam] you free-view ‘parallel’

Now I'm confused. It seemed to me that Nick said he could see Sam's (cross-eyed) clock view instantly, but had to (of course) swap the images to see them in a stereoscope.

That suggested to me that Nick free-views cross-eyed naturally but needs the stereoscope for parallel viewing.

Me with stereo glasses on:

[ Very interesting topic but can't help feeling we ought to take a lot of this stuff to another thread out of respect for Raphael and others. ? ]

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Brass rod turned with blunt HSS.

Top quality guaranteed in my workshop! Specially ribbed for your intensified pleasure…

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Bandersnatch on 30/05/2020 17:14:54:

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 30/05/2020 15:29:41:

However : Re-reading, more carefully, what you wrote to Sam … I think all you were saying is that [like me, but unlike Sam] you free-view ‘parallel’

Now I'm confused. It seemed to me that Nick said he could see Sam's (cross-eyed) clock view instantly, but had to (of course) swap the images to see them in a stereoscope.

That suggested to me that Nick free-views cross-eyed naturally but needs the stereoscope for parallel viewing.

Me with stereo glasses on:

[ Very interesting topic but can't help feeling we ought to take a lot of this stuff to another thread out of respect for Raphael and others. ? ]

.

Yes, that was my original interpretation too

MichaelG.

.

Regarding ‘respect’ … Raphael has already stated that he considers it relevant

But I’m happy to ‘go with the flow’ if you want to start another thread.

[Author]

Posts