Talk:Stereoscopy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Stereoscopic_goggles:

Goggles which conretwtain two separate screens, for giving the appearence of a 3-d object. This is possible because each screen displays a slightly different object to each eye. The brain then combines these images to produce the appearance of a 3-d object.

Iainscott 13:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If it redirects here than stereoscopic goggles should appear (bolded as here) in the article. The question is, do both LCD shutters and active devices (small CRT or LCD screens) qualify? These are presently in two different sections. Leonard G. 15:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Gallery Sites

This page attracts links to stereoscopic galleries that don't seem to belong in the external links section. I've thought about creating a Galleries section in this article, but am also considering a new page that lists online stereographic image galleries. I can't find good examples of either strategy on Wikipedia outside of a few art movement articles. Any suggestions? JeffJonez 20:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.3dphoto.net/ and the connected forum at http://www.3dphoto.net/forum/ have many pictures, but they may be discounted because they are amateur. You may, however, find some good examples, so take a look! (the forum has the widest variety of pictures, but as I said before, it is an amateur community) There are also some Flickr galleries.
Montymintypie (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I took the plunge and removed all non-information sites. I don't think theres a place in the pedia for a list of Stereoscopic Galleries, but who knows? JeffJonez (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:MrAdventur3 has taken exception to the removal of gallery sites, most likely including his (sweet3d.tv) and has reinserted the link at least three times in the last two weeks. I've asked for a decision on the inclusion of gallery sites at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests JeffJonez (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I did find a gallery subsection on the Visionary_art entry, but I'm sure such a link here would quickly swell to over 20 links. Still seems ill-advised JeffJonez (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Source of LOTS of info!

I found a site that lets you download three stereoscopy books (older, so are legal) for free. The middle one, by McKay, is extremely informative, and can possibly count as a reliable reference. Can someone investigate and see if they can consolidate the book into the article? It could really expand the article, and is a great resource. If it can be consolidated, put something on my user/talk page, because I won't check here ;) Get it here: http://www.stereoscopic.org/library/index.html Montymintypie 10:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Color anaglyphs

What is the intended purpose of these -- is it simply to provide combine flat colour and stereoscopic monochrome information into the same image to be viewed separately, or is there some cunning way of viewing the colour and stereoscopic information simultaneously? -- JTN 20:04, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

The objective is to present both a reasonable simulation of the color information and the stereoscopic depth information. Note that this is both dependent upon the colors and textures used in the subject and upon the viewer possessing normal color vision (not colorblind). If in the images presented, which appear to the author (me) to be both colorful and stereoscopic, you do not perceive depth or color, you may have a visual limitation. Note that in particular, red-green colorblindness is quite common (I think 1.5 pct) among males). Compare the toy on the shelf pictures - one is in color, the other monochrome. As the monochrome uses red and cyan only, even red-green colorblindness should not affect the 3-D illusion. Please tell me how you perceive these two images. Note that images that have contrasting colors (especially in vertical stripes) that are selectively filtered may present false depth cues — such images are not presented in the article. Leonard G. 23:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Color anaglyphs

In January 2006 I inserted 2 modern, full color analyph images on the page. It seems to me that modern technology is of more general interest in its pure form, then taking an old stereo card and converting it to poor color anaglyph. Someone did that, some months back and gave this site as very "quaint" yet historically warped look. Stereo cards are not in anaglyph. There is little or no academic point to be made by converting a stereo card to an anglyph if it looks "tacky". What do you contributors think of the modern examples posted? I'm told that it is "taboo" to remove a picture, however bad. That doesn't make much sense if it is "cool" to delete several hundred words without a thought. Sorry, I don't know what happened to the funny anaglyph stereo-card of NYC. I would restore it, if that is the culture at WIKI, but it seems to have left the scene.68.125.20.11 06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too few References??

What's that for a request on top of the page? There aren't many stereoscopy books or articles. These references would run into very short circles. You can't tag this page just because there are too few references listed. Someone checked the article by it's term and not only it's form? (unsigned comment, 19:14, April 7, 2007 62.117.1.116)

The reference section is truly in want of repair. Modern wikipedia articles cite published sources. Moreover, every paragraph should have an inline reference. I found 526 books with Stereoscopy in its title. Fred Hsu 00:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standards for red/green(ish) anaglyphs

In my experience (mostly NASA and ESA images), these anaglyphs are designed such that the red filter should cover the left eye, and the green(/blue/cyan) filter should cover the right eye, as for the examples in the article. I don't recall ever having coming across a counterexample to this.

Is this formally standardised, or just a de-facto standard? Does anyone know of any significant counterexamples?

One answer to this is that you can open an anaglyph image in a photo editor and mirror the image. Then you can use the viewer reversed. I find this useful as the eye with the red lense tends to get sore. But if I reverse the image so I can reverse the viewer it reduces the strain on the one eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.69.117 (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, are the colours to use standardised? One comes across both green and cyan; my freebie ESA cardboard specs from a few years ago have a green filter, but cyan seems to be more common in images these days (again in my limited experience). (The green filter does an adequate job with these images.)

-- JTN 20:11, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Red-Green filters are suitable for viewing appropriate colorized monochrome (black and white) images only, and were the only practical means since these were easy filters to produce accurately and cheaply. The advantage in using Red-Cyan is that these colors are complementary. Any color will pass through one, the other, or both of the filters, allowing the presentation of color information (see note above). With Red-Green, the red filter will block out both blue and green, the green will block out both blue and red, so it is not possible to present a nice blue sky - it will instead appear dark. Note that black and white photographs with a dark (daylight) sky are produced using a yellow filter, which is the complement of blue. Yellow is white minus blue, or red plus green, while blue is white minus yellow, or white minus both blue and red. Red is white minus cyan, while cyan is white minus red, or blue plus green.

[edit] Breakup article

I'm thinking of breaking this article up so it isn't so long (ie make an article for anaglyph glasses, etc... and just making this a jumping off page for those articles). Any thoughts? --Ctachme 03:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm bored right now so I'm going to go ahead and do that, I suppose people can revert if they wish. --Ctachme 23:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3D imaging redirects here, but shouldn't, really. I was directed from Terahertz radiation expecting that to be about MRI, CAT, etc. — Omegatron 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Possible contradiction with Stereogram, which lists a different inventor of the photographic stereogram as 1832 - vs. Wheatstone in 1838. At the least the distinction should probably be made clear....

[edit] Move link?

The last link ("Hand-drawn stereoscopic pictures") doesn't relate to stereoscopy. I expected it to describe how to geometrically calculate stereo differences in drawings. Instead, the linked page describes how to scratch circular arcs in plastic to create holographic optical illusions. It's a rather interesting link, maybe someone can find a more appropriate place for it.

[edit] Wikipedia:3D Illustrations opinions solicited

Editors of this article may have interest and expertise that would be helpful in developing policy relating to use of 3D images here at Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:3D Illustrations and the talk page to participate. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that the policy against 3D illustrations in general would apply to this article. The policy would seem to apply against 3D renderings of a clock mechanism, or of an ant colony. This article is expressly about 3D illustration and stereography, and so 3D illustrations would rather seem to be appropriate in this limited context. Xenophon777 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial links

Curious: Why are comerical software packages such as Edimensional and Anaglypher allowed to be listed, but any other software refrence removed. Is that like a kickback or bribe system or how exactly does this work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LionShare (talk • contribs) 23:20, 29 March 2006

Simple. Wikipedia has a policy regarding external links, but it takes someone to enforce it. Algae 17:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture problems

I am no pro, but I consider myself pretty good at free-fusing stereo images. The pair of Manhattan images at the top are simply too big for me to fuse. I think a reduced size, similar to those in the rest of the article, would be better. The easiest picture for me to see is the color image of corset tightening. Finally, in the lower pair of images of naked women, the images are swapped relative to the upper pair, which I believe is the correct arrangement. Note the artifact next to the pole in one image that is missing in the other. (Yeah, I know, I'm not supposed to be looking at the pole.)--agr 13:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read the article more carefully and it seems the switch is intentional and supposed to make viewing easier, but is sure does the opposite for me. Contrary to the caption, I find the top pair easy to fuse. --agr 19:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I too am good at viewing these by unfocusing my eyes, and I agree. I always bring them into focus by looking past the image, at or as near infinity as necessary to make my left- and right-eye images overlap. As such the top "parallel" nude is easy to view. Trying the same on the lower "cross" image makes it look almost hollow, ie concave. I am able to get the lower image to work by focusing in the air before it, and then carefully relaxing my eyes without adjusting them. At the correct distance it suddenly locks in focus, but I have trouble maintaining the image more than a few seconds. It's easier at a greater distance though. The point in either case is to make the focal depth of the eyeball itself different from the point of intersection of the lines of sight of the eyes. The lower image, when focused properly, seems smaller but more detailed.--Qaanol 23:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image viewing problems - solution!

A couple of points;

First, the corset picture is round the wrong way (for stereoscopic images to work the left and right need to be reversed before viewing). I have swapped them using Photoshop so that they now work, but I haven't a clue how to post them on the site.

I have made a page on my own site that shows the corrected version: http://www.digital-photography-tips.net/wikipedia-3d.html

The version on my site is low-res because my hosting company doesn't allow large file sizes.

I suspect the same problem exists with some of the other images on this page, the old Manhattan one for example. This is why people are having viewing problems.


Second, I have a page on my own website that deals with how to make stereoscopic images. I would like to add it as a resource, but have been informed that I can't as it is my own site and Wikipedia rules don't allow this. Apparently someone else can take a look and add it if they feel it is worth it.

The url for my stereoscopic pages is: http://www.digital-photography-tips.net/stereoscopic.html

I'd be obliged if someone would have a look through this page (and the links from it) and add it to the resources if they feel it is appropriate.

Many thanks,

Darrell. --Dazp1970 14:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


As far as I can tell, there is no standard for displaying stereo images on the web with regard to cross-viewing (left-right reversed) or parallel (left and right not reversed). I personally like parallel since this is the format used on stereo cards, and it allows use of a PokeScope viewer. It's also my opinion that parallel free-viewing is easier for people that have never tried either method. Some people prefer cross-viewing which allows them to see images larger than the interoccular spacing, but I believe these people are outnumbered by those that prefer parallel viewing. 12.15.160.6 13:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Jay M.


Although it makes it easier to view, the crosseye view is not correct, as the example is of a stereo card. Stereo cards were always in parallel format, to be viewed separately with a separate viewer. (sorry about the bad grammar there ;) To stay true with Wikipedia content, it should be shown as the original would look--Montymintypie 06:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
One more additional note: Although cross-eye images can be slightly larger than parallel ones the stereoscopic image does not appear larger since the brain realizes the merged imaged as hovering somewhere between the real picture and viewer's eyes. Thus, they appear as unnaturally close-by and small while the parallel method lets them appear as distant. Furthermore, the larger the cross-eye images are (and thus the required crossing angle for the eyes) the earlier the eyes may become tired, perhabs resulting in headache for some people. Parallel viewing, on the other hand, is more similar to distant viewing. Remember that binoculars and 3D head-mounted displays also use the parallel technique.--SiriusB 08:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stereoscopic image choice

I use the computers at the high school to do research. I am researching stereoscopes and stereograms. This is, of course, a very nice article, but I have a complaint: the picture of the nude women could have, if seen by the teacher, gotten me barred from ever using the computers again. Now, I realize that this is in fact an historical stereoscopic image, but is there another image that we could use that would be more high-school-teacher friendly? Thank you, Haruspex 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also say that showing the nude women is unnecessary. Talking about them is good. Linking to them, even a whole gallery of them, is fine. But having the image right there on the main page can only create unwanted problems for many legitimate viewers. It may not even be right, but is a fact.
Fixed. I agree, there is no reason to make a page school-unsafe if it's not about a school-unsafe topic. (The same image was on the 'Stereoscope' page, I removed it there a while ago, but didn't know it was here as well.) As I said on the Stereoscope talk page, I personally have nothing against it, but it is good to have Wikipedia pages safe for schools. Don't want students getting in trouble for viewing such non-controversial pages. Ehurtley 06:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Who the hell changed it back? Why? Really. There is no logical reason to use the nudie pics. None at all. My stepson uses Wikipedia at school (sixth grade,) and if a topic isn't inherently about a topic that involves nudity, it shouldn't contain nudity. My stepson shouldn't get in trouble for viewing nudity on a completely irrelevant article. If he's going to get in trouble for viewing nudity, then gosh darn it, I want him to be at least viewing a page where nudity is warranted! It's that simple. I'm switching it back to the pair of NYC pictures. Ehurtley 13:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stereoscopically Impaired?

I have a problem that I have been unable to get any information about. I can see depth in all types of Stereoscopic images I've viewed. But I see the images separately at about the 3D focal point or a bit closer. That is, soon after the point at which the image 'leaves the screen' or the page, I see them diverged. I can see extreme depth, more so than other people I've asked. I have viewed stereoscopic images on a 132cm screen where the divergence was 122cm. Where as other people in my household saw these as two images at about 9cm
I can perceive T-38ondisplay.jpg‎ as 3D instantly, without even using glasses. Especially the area left of the plane. But only up to the dark area of the nose cone. I see the dark area and the antenna at a red and green images.
After a moment of staring, without glasses, the 1930_Cord.jpg image appears 3D, but only everything further away than the headlight on my right.
21st_century_engine_setup.jpg does not appear 3D to me without glasses. With glasses the results are the same, only instant.
I can see a Chromadepth effect always. Depending on the image size, it looks to be almost up to 1cm in depth. With glasses it is dramatically more effective, with some blue patterns seeming to be about 15 meters away. With or without glasses, Red just barely pokes out of the screen
I do not believe I have ever used compensating anaglyph glasses. I have yet to find a magiceye that I cannot see. Although magiceye images for me have another problem. Areas in the image, usually tiny ones corresponding to some of the 3D edges, break my perception if I try to focus on them. In this image, the entire area in front of the man's chest, below his right arm, and above the paddle's handle, is a problem area for me. No magiceye has ever appeared to 'come off the page' for me. I see only depth in them.
Wiggle stereoscopy usually doesn't work for me at all. I perceive the images separately on my side of the focal point and see depth on the other, when they do work.
I am slightly near sighted in my left and barely far sited in my right. My right eye was normal and my left only slight effected when I first discovered my stereoscopic impairment. As my eyesight has changed (worsened), my stereoscopic impairment seems to have remained constant. My glasses help me to see, but seem to have no effect on my stereoscopic impairment. Putting the filters in front or behind my glasses makes not difference. No optometrist I have spoken to has ever been able to offer an explanation for my condition. Several of these optometrists kept stereoscopic materials in their offices, from profession view-masters to toy ones, linearly polarized, cardboard red/blue, and Chromadepth. In offering their services they apparently had never encountered my condition before.

That's odd. I have bad 3d vision, so I do not naturally see in 3d. I need 'mechanical aid' to see 3d (an old fashioned stereoscope isn't enough, I need 'flicker glasses' or similar.) Yet I see the 'engine' picture as 3d unaided. Which is really odd to me, since it means that the engine 'leaps out', when the actual 3d environment I'm in doesn't. I cannot see magiceyes at all, ever, no matter what. Ehurtley 06:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text removed from Stereoscopy#Wiggle stereoscopy

67.169.34.100 (talk · contribs) removed the following text from the Wiggle stereoscopy section:

To illustrate the difference between true stereoscopic formats and the two-dimensional "wiggle" method, consider what happens when a stereophonic music CD is played through only one loudspeaker: It is no longer possible to hear the stereophonic audio signal since it is now only coming out of one loudspeaker. Flipping between the Left and Right audio channels of the stereophonic signal through the one loudspeaker, the listener is still only hearing a monaural signal. By listening to the stereophonic music CD through stereophonic headphones that deliver the proper audio signal to each ear, the listener can experience true stereophonic audio. Similarly, the only way to experience binocular stereoscopic depth perception when viewing stereoscopic images is to use a device (stereoscope, anaglyph glasses, polarized glasses, shutter glasses) that presents each of the two eyes with the corresponding Left or Right image.

The user had earlier added the following comments to that section of the article (since removed):

Here is another writer, Igor Polk: "Since you started this discussion here, I want to point out to the problems in your logical reasoning. You sound like you assume that stereo sound exists only when stereophonic audio is played through the headphones. Man, you live in an artificial world. In reality, we DO hear audio-spatial distribution of signals scattered around in space. And I want to point out that EVERY ear receives sounds from the same sources. Human brain calculates difference in time when signal reaches receptors through ears, so it is able to find where the source of particular sound is located creating, so to speak, a 3-dimensioal map of surrounding objects. Vision has totally different mechanism. Spatial parallax is calculated for every recognizable part of the visual image, and then brain calculates 3-D map. This map is NOT in eyes. It is inside the brain. It is not what we see, it is the result of "processing". This processing is a mystery yet. Probably when images are delivered inside, as soon as they are taken with the distance from each other, the brain can find a way to assemble 3-D map. It may sound inconvincing, but have you ever tried "flipping between the left and right audio channel through the one head phone?" as you suggested? It probably will not work since time is needed for "flipping" and that offsets difference in time to recognize spatial differences, but it may will produce something. Who knows? On the other hand photo-wiggling does not affect anything. It actually helps to calculate spatial parallax. Time-time in the case with hearing, time-space in the case with sight. See what I mean? Thank you.".

Is the text removed by the anon user original research or should it be put back into the article? -- Paddu 09:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new image (car)

I added the digital image of the yellow cross-view car to bring some modernity to the illustrations. The tone of the "bad rap" given cross-viewing as compared to proper "wall-eye" stereoscopes, is not factual. Wall eying can ruin yur vision permanently. That why parallel pair have to be very small, Crossing isn't nearly as bad as the phrase suggests. it is actually converging like you would to look at a small real life image, only passing that point in "limbo". It sound like B.S. to promote stereoscopes or modern viewers.3dnatureguy 12:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added tip 17 at the bottom of the page. This is because I feel that one area where stereoscopy really excells is in the photography of lanscapes.

I have also added an external link. It's to a page on my own website (non commercial) that deals with training the eyes to "fuse" stereographs. It will, I believe, help some readers of this article who may struggle to fuse the images.

Please feel free to edit/discuss these two additions to the page.

Please explain in more detail why wall eying (if done willingly, not due to Strabismus) could "ruin your vision permanently". If you have any references about possible risks than they should be given in the article.
The car image, however, is (even in the current version) for parallel, not for crossed-eye viewing (if viewed with crossed eyes the car appears to be more distant than the background).--SiriusB 08:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phantograms

I recently discovered there's also this neat trick using anaglyphs called phantograms. They're just a distorted anaglyphic image made to be look at from an angle.

The angle gives it a "holographic" feel, as if the image was coming out of the paper (instead of normal anaglyphs that look like a window with a 3D image seen through it).

We could add a mention to the article, no? — Kieff 03:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to a user-created list of patents on stereoscopy

69.250.232.95 added the following wiki comment in the External links section in the article. I moved it here. Please use the talk page to discuss this type of changes. Also, it may help if you add edit summary when you save changes.

Fred Hsu, I added the patent list because this wiki site is cited in articles on both patentmonkey.com and CrunchGear.com as a useful resource when reviewing Stereoscopy patents, I'm sure you have seen the traffic increase today. I figured since the increase in exposure happened because of a patent article, that the link might also be useful to those travelers.

I removed the link to 'a list of patents related to stereoscopy by baltojackson' twice already, because 1) the page does not explain whether this is a definitive list of ALL patents related to stereoscopy or just a list created by baltojackson in spare time, and 2) this is an enclopedia article on stereoscopy, not on patents. It could be just me, but I don't think a typical reader of this article will actually proceed to investigate patents related to this topic after reading the wiki article. I am sure there are ways for people interested in filing patents to quickly find existing patents related to stereoscopy and other topics elsewhere online.

It is not clear to me that simply because patentmonkey has an article which links to wikipedia makes it obligatory that the wiki article link back to the site. Fred Hsu 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the car image is all wrong

i have fixed it....Gandalf's-hattalk 17:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mergers ...

Would it make sense to merge the articles on "stereoscopy" and "Stereoscope?" The subject of stereoscopes would seem to be only a small subset of the subject of stereoscopy... Much of the material which would normally appear in an article on stereoscopes (e.g., 3D method, etc.) would have to be in the article on stereoscopy as well. Xenophon777 12:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of closely related pages out there which should probably be merged into Stereoscopy.. however, in a fit of un-bold-ness, I'd like to first point these things out to see whether anyone had an objection or a different view... Xenophon777 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles, such as anaglyph image, were once part of this stereoscopy article, but split out a few years ago as the article was becoming too long, and the derivitive articles have since been substantially expanded, making a merger inappropriate. Note first edit of anaglyph image "19:25, 23 April 2005 Ctachme (Talk | contribs) (from breakup of stereoscopy)" - Leonard G. 03:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Since there has been no respose or comment, I am removing the merge tags - Leonard G. 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not think stereoview photographs should be merged with the other article. That would be a big mistake!--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merging is not a good idea. Stereoscopy is a broader subject than the present article would seem to indicate and might get too long. Stereo cameras likewise has considerable room for growth.--12.72.152.71 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Link Trimming

It started small, but I kept finding commercial and redundant external links. I was going to sort them too, but I don't see any external link sorting guidelines. They'll most likely get whacked again if they return without a good justification. JeffJonez 18:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Another round of link culling. Did I miss all those commercial / non-english links the first time, or were they just more forgivable than the first set? I'm also worried about all these galleries. Do they belong here?JeffJonez 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Hey people, this article badly needs a history section. I think it is worthless without a section about its history. Please help if you can. Thank you.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiggle

Is it just me, or does blinking while viewing the "wiggle" example potentially enhance the 3D effect? It seems to me one can modulate the motion by changing the rate of blinking (rapid blinking). This alters the effect of persistence of vision, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.29.49 (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New 3D Glasses Method

Officially called "Dolby3D" (since Dolby obtained the technology and they are now commercially releasing it), but was originally called "Infinitec" (when presented at SIGGRAPH). This is related to anaglyph, since it is using certain wavelengths for either eye (anaglyph of course using all blue wavelengths for the right eye and all red wavelengths for the left eye). I've left more detail on the discussion page for Anaglyph image, since it might fall under that article. Whether or not it should be an article seperate from Anaglyph image, it most definitely deserves a mention under 3D glasses on this page. 69.12.141.101 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Over/under section !?

I am missing an over/under section for the method using KMQ prism glasses and others. I just started an open source / open hardware project related to this method, established 20 years ago and wonder, why the en section of the stereoscopic world seems not aware of it. Are there any objections to a) add such a section and b) link to the project ? Here is the link to the german wiki: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMQ Here are the links to the new (CC) licenced project: http://openKMQ.blogSpot.com, http://www.PixelPartner.de/openKMQ.htm PixelPartner (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)