wolframhydroxide @ wolframhydroxide @sh.itjust.works

Posts

2

Comments

287

Joined

12 mo. ago

You are correct, they are slightly different, but are based on the same effect of stereo imaging.

Good point! I'd love to see a by-genus breakdown of average metabolic rate vs body mass.

Ooh, nice depth!

You're doing "wall eyed" viewing. These are for "cross-eyed" viewing. "Wall-eyed" means your eyes are focusing at a point behind the image. You need to cross your eyes for these. Try putting your finger in between your screen and your eyes, varying the distance until the dots merge. Then, remove your finger, focusing on the image itself. That should allow for cross-eyed viewing.

Ah yes! Sorry, the stupid thing is, I knew that and said that to someone else last night! Thank you stranger!

If you want wall-eyed viewing, you can just download the image and mirror flip swap it in an image editor. I also personally prefer wall-eyed viewing.

This is exactly how JPL posted them, and they did cross-eyed viewing because the image jumps out of the page, rather than in (I presume).

Oh, also, I really miss the old JMOL molecular models that you could view in cross- or wall-eyed stereo. Anyone know what software is required to make those?

Oh, that is SO COOL! Do you have any more anatomical pictures in stereo?

Ah, thanks for the edit. I still think that these have greater value from a scientific perspective, but I do also have a collection of many stereo images that I could post here for you! They're MUCH older, though:

Sorry for the poor quality here! It's difficult to take nice scans of these since they're curved with age. OH, also, these are wall-eyed, not cross-eyed.

I just posted some more over here.

I agree with the general sentiment, though I believe that the value of these images from the perspective of scientific appreciation outweighs traditional Magic Eye images. I remember, ten years later on, how my professor for the geology intro course let us see images taken over Germany by British intelligence, and you could literally see how they used the stereography to find missiles, because you'd be looking at a bunch of flat terrain and then bam, there's a weird thing poking up out of the ground near that farmhouse. Then, she showed us some of these, and showed us how you could compare the topography in these to those on the topo maps. From a "wow" factor, not everything is going to be as flashy as a Royal Institution Christmas lecture, but this is what science looks like.

ETA: Wait, what do you mean "out-of-focus"?

It would be MUCH more than 2x resource consumption, because every action that animal takes requires greater energy to move it around. The energy required to sustain larger lifeforms is significantly greater than the proportion of their mass.

Fair. I, too, prefer wall-eyed, but these were prepared by NASA. You could edit the image to swap the two and make them Wall-eyed, though!

You're doing "wall eyed" viewing. These are for "cross-eyed" viewing. "Wall-eyed" means your eyes are focusing at a point behind the image. You need to cross your eyes for these. Try putting your finger in between your screen and your eyes, varying the distance until the dots merge. Then, remove your finger, focusing on the image itself. That should allow for cross-eyed viewing.

Now that you've figured it out, behold: Stereograms!

The above satellite images from NASA allow you to SEE the topography in 3D.

Bold of you to think that the microplastic is going to go away after one generation...

I can do ya one better...

I dunno, dwarf fortress seems to be doing alright for itself so far. Tarn and Zach really needed some more help and some graphic design backup. I don't agree with the total abandonment of the keybindings system in favor of mouse clicks, but I understand that it was necessary to make the game's learning curve less precipitous.

"Truth is singular. Its 'versions' are mistruths" Sonmi-451, Cloud Atlas