Do we really need these?

https://e621.net/post/index/1/stereogram

They're just 2 of the same picture side-by-side. If every picture on the site was reposted with one of these versions, the site would be flooded with them. It seems like they have an extremely high potential for abuse, and I don't even know if they work.

Which ones do we allow, and which ones do we nuke? There's actually been a previous topic on this, and it seems that some of the admins agree that they're unnecessary.

SirAntagonist said:
Do we really need these?

https://e621.net/post/index/1/stereogram

They're just 2 of the same picture side-by-side. ...

Not if they're real stereograms they aren't.
A real one has slight differences based on angle, so if done properly you can see the images in 3d.
It's a pretty cool effect if done well.

Edit: This one is particularly well done, if you want one to practice the viewing technique on:
post #442583

They definitely work if done properly, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy)

This system of two slightly different angles is also used in the height survey of bigger maps, I had an excursion through one of the labs in Germany who do that and it was quite amusing getting the mousepointer 2' out of the screen.
It's also pretty precise, around 10cm spiel for things like the height of a roof for something like that is a very good result.

I've never been able to see things in 3D, so I'll have to take your word for it.

I'm mainly asking when they're allowed and when they aren't (or if they should be allowed at all), seeing as you can pretty much take any picture and make one with 2 minutes in photoshop.

SirAntagonist said:
...seeing as you can pretty much take any picture and make one with 2 minutes in photoshop.

A real stereogram has slightly different angles built into both pictures (like NMNY and Halite both just explained in more detail), so no it's not possible to make on in two minutes in photoshop. It's a lot more than simply pasting two copies of the exact same image side-by-side. It's been awhile since I've tried to make a fake one work, but from my memories of them, I don't think they worked nearly as well. Anyone who can work a stereogram can tell the difference between one that was made well vs one that was just two images pasted side-by-side pretending to be a stereogram. It's not that easy to fake.

There's software out there that will make bad ones though.
Like this one:
post #440473
It's 3 layers, background, upper torso, lower torso+legs.
But that method looks like crap.

Images that were meant to be stereoscopic from the beginning, like the first one I linked to, have texture throughout the image, not just separation into layers.

The cross-eye method is actually not that hard if you don't give up too quickly.
A few tips if you want to try it:
1. plain black or white around the image makes it easiest, so open the image into it's own window/tab, don't try it in the full e621 page.
2. Start looking at the line where the two images meet.
3. Slowly cross your eyes until right around where you can see 3 images instead of 2.
4. Focus in on the middle image, adjust your eyes as you go until the lines overlap and the 3d effect should just pop into view. You may have to relax when you're close, too much effort can cause you to lose it.

That first image I linked really is a good one, not just for quality, but also how easy it is to see the 3d compared to others I've seen.
Oh, and if you keep doing it for too long (like 60 minutes+), it strains your eyes and can cause a headache for some people.

Halite said:
The cross-eye method is actually not that hard if you don't give up too quickly.
A few tips if you want to try it:
1. plain black or white around the image makes it easiest, so open the image into it's own window/tab, don't try it in the full e621 page.
2. Start looking at the line where the two images meet.
3. Slowly cross your eyes until right around where you can see 3 images instead of 2.
4. Focus in on the middle image, adjust your eyes as you go until the lines overlap and the 3d effect should just pop into view. You may have to relax when you're close, too much effort can cause you to lose it.

The way I learned to do it was by partially covering my eyes so that my left eye could only see the right side of the image and vice versa. Once I got it through that method a few times and I knew how it was supposed to "click" together, it started to get easier to do it without having to do anything special. Now I can get it to work in about 3-5 seconds (a little out of practice).

SirAntagonist said:
I've never been able to see things in 3D, so I'll have to take your word for it.

My eye doctor told me the same thing around the time he prescribed glasses for me. Farsightedness runs in my family, but I've had a virus in my left eye for my entire life (or just about it). That virus first flared up when I was really little and it didn't get the proper attention it needed back then, so it left behind a tiny scar, causing it to become very nearsighted. It was fine for most of my childhood, but before getting my learner's driver's license I had it all checked out and my family's farsightedness had kicked in, so it was time for glasses.

So, with one very nearsighted eye and one slightly farsighted eye, I'm not supposed to be able to see 3D images or movies properly, but they work just fine for me. Or at least they work well enough, and there's just no way I'll ever know any different.

Halite said:
There's software out there that will make bad ones though.
Like this one:
post #440473
It's 3 layers, background, upper torso, lower torso+legs.
But that method looks like crap.

Images that were meant to be stereoscopic from the beginning, like the first one I linked to, have texture throughout the image, not just separation into layers.

The cross-eye method is actually not that hard if you don't give up too quickly.
A few tips if you want to try it:
1. plain black or white around the image makes it easiest, so open the image into it's own window/tab, don't try it in the full e621 page.
2. Start looking at the line where the two images meet.
3. Slowly cross your eyes until right around where you can see 3 images instead of 2.
4. Focus in on the middle image, adjust your eyes as you go until the lines overlap and the 3d effect should just pop into view. You may have to relax when you're close, too much effort can cause you to lose it.

That first image I linked really is a good one, not just for quality, but also how easy it is to see the 3d compared to others I've seen.
Oh, and if you keep doing it for too long (like 60 minutes+), it strains your eyes and can cause a headache for some people.

I can't physically see 3D images. I never have, and never will.

So, are "fake" ones deleted, while "real" ones are left up?

SirAntagonist said:
I can't physically see 3D images. I never have, and never will.

So, are "fake" ones deleted, while "real" ones are left up?

Fair enough.

As for the question, that's tough.
Some of the layer effect images are actually pretty decent if they're done well, and with the right base image.
In effect it's just an image edit.
If it's a crappy edit it should be treated like any other crappy edit and deleted for poor quality.
Problem there is finding an admin willing to do the 3d trick on them to check their quality since you can't always tell without actually seeing the 3d effect.

I'd be willing to check them for quality, but since I can't delete them myself, and flagging for poor quality is a ban-able offense, I don't know if it will do any good.

I don't approve them. They aren't original artwork and open up abuse potential. If I knew how to create them, I could just gather hundreds of my favorite images, stereogramize them and spam them onto the front page. And if the mods allowed it then I'd just keep doing it.

I generally do a quick check on them, I have a lazy eye and thus crossing them to get the effect is trivial to me (even if I have to tilt my head a bit since my left eye drifts slightly down and not perfectly horizontally).

If they look like shit I delete them, otherwise I most often keep them if it isn't too noticeable that they are edited from a base image.

ippiki_ookami said:
I don't approve them. They aren't original artwork and open up abuse potential. If I knew how to create them, I could just gather hundreds of my favorite images, stereogramize them and spam them onto the front page. And if the mods allowed it then I'd just keep doing it.

Some of them are actually original, or at least created by the artist with the specific intent of making them 3d through stereogram.
Notably that first image I posted up there is clearly not an image that was taken and then turned 3d, you can tell by the smooth 3d that is consistent across the image.
The easiest way to put it is that real 3d images have roundness to them.
Images that were flat, then split into a stereogram aren't round, you can see edges even when done well because it's a 2d image.

NotMeNotYou said:
I generally do a quick check on them, I have a lazy eye and thus crossing them to get the effect is trivial to me (even if I have to tilt my head a bit since my left eye drifts slightly down and not perfectly horizontally).

If they look like shit I delete them, otherwise I most often keep them if it isn't too noticeable that they are edited from a base image.

Good to know.

Edit:
Figure I could toss a few up here that might need a review, they seem pretty bad (if not appropriate please just ignore me):
post #439793
post #440473 obviously since I mentioned it before
post #381810
post #294683
post #303318

Ugh getting a headache.
Also, Nezumi doesn't bother me in 2d, but 3d is a bit creepy.

SirAntagonist said:
I can't physically see 3D images. I never have, and never will.

So, are "fake" ones deleted, while "real" ones are left up?

Huh. Amblyopia actually sounds a lot like what happened with my vision. The reason I was able to go nearly my whole life without glasses until high school was because my right eye established dominance so that my left eye really only provided some peripheral vision. Even now if I cover my right eye, it affects about two thirds of my vision until I have a moment to readjust (when I'm extremely tired, it can take almost a minute to readjust, so it's kinda trippy watching it slip back). And when I cover my left eye, my brain doesn't even try to readjust.

Maybe that's what my eye doctor meant when he said I might not be able to see 3D and I just misunderstood. Either way, I can still manage to see 3D, though. Brains really are most weird, inconsistent, and illogical things around when you think about it.

As for which ones are deleted, I think I've noticed some of the really bad ones where it's just two exact copies side by side get removed. I don't really keep a close eye ha on them though. Ultimately, I think artists started making these mostly because they're amused at the thought that they can get people to fap while cross-eyed.

EDIT:

Halite said:
Edit:
Figure I could toss a few up here that might need a review, they seem pretty bad (if not appropriate please just ignore me):
-snip-

First one looks like her ass isn't even connected to her body. Second is pretty meh. The layers seem a bit too separated from one another, but not as badly as the Fluttershy one.

The third and fourth, I wasn't even sure anything was done with them until I looked closely. They're just separated from the background a little bit. Maybe an extra layer in #3, but if there is, it's barely noticeable.

I like that last one though. The layers are still distinct (I can count 5), but none stand out too much. As far these layer edits go, it's not bad at all. If I have a say in the matter, then that one's got my vote to stay.

I could never actually see the 3d image...
I don't think Stereoscopic images should be encouraged, mainly due to the fact that rarely ever is it done by the artist themselves (I mean you can tell when it is, but still), and you know how artists are about editing their work without permission.

I've never been able to see them at all either, nor those magic image thing-a-ma-boops. No idea if it's a physical disability for me or not, but I do have bad eyes. Problem is, I can see 3D images in movies using those 3D glasses glasses and stuff. I think I've just never been able to get the viewing tgechnique to work for me for whatever reason.

Personally, I don't like em, but that's just because I can't see them, so I don't think it's fair for me to say "get rid of Stereoscopic images!" and spoil the fun for everyone else who likes them. I guess I don't really care much, but I can say I definitely wouldn't miss them.

I actually also transformed a couple of those to be viewed on the 3DS, it works pretty well and is obviously easier than going cross eyed.

I can turn these into gifs that are 3d for you guys, if you'd like. But since I'm on a iPad, I cannot upload them because they are gifs

AmericanExistence said:
I can turn these into gifs that are 3d for you guys, if you'd like. But since I'm on a iPad, I cannot upload them because they are gifs

No thanks, those wiggle gifs look like crap, cross eye method looks much better.