Using some software, I was able to render a pic on this website to be 3ds compatable. There were some screening issues, and it was taken off due to it already having a base artist. They just didn't understand my point on why I had "USE 3DS" on the picture. They probably didn't use a 3ds.

If anyone truly wants to know what I mean, then just fwd a link to a pic you made that you want to "sample".

New technology calls for new ideas. :3

And for other of you out there, this is NOT a feature I am asking for. If I can create it myself, then if the e621 staff cares enough, they can add onto it. Until then, it doesn't require e621 to create anything.

you know, pictures like that are neat, but not everyone can afford a 3ds, maybe the mod who deleted the picture didn't have a 3ds, and therefore couldn't tell the difference. it's hard enough that the world has made it mandatory to own a computer and have internet, I personally don't want to have to go out and buy a game system just to see an image in 3d when I can already see it just fine in 2d.

No, we get it. There's just zero reason to keep it on the site.

ippiki_ookami said:
No, we get it. There's just zero reason to keep it on the site.

Really? None? I dunno. Images where people edit out a herm's dick or oodles of jizzm or all of the various recolorings of Krystal are kept, because someone out there wants that. I'm sure Gameboy isn't the only 3DS owner on the site. Others might appreciate images that use its technology. I think there is a perfectly good reason to keep them up.

RedOctober said:
why delete x when y/z is/are still here

No. We don't all have 3DSes. Those Krystal recolours can be viewed without a 3DS, too.

RedOctober said:
Really? None? I dunno. Images where people edit out a herm's dick or oodles of jizzm or all of the various recolorings of Krystal are kept, because someone out there wants that. I'm sure Gameboy isn't the only 3DS owner on the site. Others might appreciate images that use its technology. I think there is a perfectly good reason to keep them up.

Exactly my point. Granted, not many of us have a 3ds, but out of the 1,500,000 daily views, about at least 5000 would have a 3ds. If it's ok to re-upload a pic with tons of jizzm everywhere, why can't I re-upload a pic with an "easter egg" for the +5000 people? Besides, the image can still be viewed normally on the pc.

Riversyde said:
No. We don't all have 3DSes. Those Krystal recolours can be viewed without a 3DS, too.

You're right. But my point was that we keep, with legitimate reason, edits without dicks, or bulges, or mess, because users want to see those images that way, so there's no harm in keeping these for the same reason. Users may want to see those images. I don't have a 3DS, so I wouldn't view them on one, but I'm still in favor of keeping them.

Example of repostings:

original - http://e621.net/post/show/94446/black-blue-blush-breast_grab-breasts-canine-cum-cu

Reposts:
http://e621.net/post/show/94446/black-blue-blush-breast_grab-breasts-canine-cum-cu
http://e621.net/post/show/99893/3d-animated-black-blue-blush-breast_grab-breasts-c
http://e621.net/post/show/108585/3d-3d_anaglyph-3drb-anaglyph-black-blue-blush-brea

They are all posted by different people. So, why aren't they taken down? They all had the same purpose as me - to make the image 3d.

Gameboy1134 said:
Exactly my point. Granted, not many of us have a 3ds, but out of the 1,500,000 daily views, about at least 5000 would have a 3ds. If it's ok to re-upload a pic with tons of jizzm everywhere, why can't I re-upload a pic with an "easter egg" for the +5000 people? Besides, the image can still be viewed normally on the pc.

25 people use a 3ds on this site.. out of 50k a day
and I'm not gonna make a decision as why you can't.. but I'll tell you now. I don't own a 3DS. So we can't support anything involved with it. Just like the ipad or the msn messenger..

Aurali said:
We can't support anything involved with it. Just like the ipad or the msn messenger..

Like I said, I'm not looking for support, I'm looking for a new possibility.

Normally I would agree - IMO images made for the 3DS belong here as much as anything else.

That said, I see the problem. If there's no glaringly obvious differences between what's meant to be viewed on a 3DS and what isn't, it'd all look the same on a PC. If some uninformed person came in, it would be easy to mistake the 3DS version for a dupe.

So, I dunno.

Akz said:
If there's no glaringly obvious differences between what's meant to be viewed on a 3DS and what isn't, it'd all look the same on a PC. If some uninformed person came in, it would be easy to mistake the 3DS version for a dupe.

So tagging it as 3ds enabled won't help?

I tried that, and they still took it down.

This is an art archive. We have no obligation to cater to the gaming community. DS-compatible reposts will be treated like any other reposts.

Although I don't have a 3DS I'm in favor of these images being here.

Just give it a 3ds enabled tag or something so if people don't have a 3DS they can just blacklist it.

cuntslut said:
Although I don't have a 3DS I'm in favor of these images being here.

Just give it a 3ds enabled tag or something so if people don't have a 3DS they can just blacklist it.

Yeah, I'm not adding something to my barren blacklist just because one person in 1000 likes it. We don't subscribe to the "If I can't see it, it's not happening" theory.

ippiki_ookami said:
This is an art archive. We have no obligation to cater to the gaming community. DS-compatible reposts will be treated like any other reposts.

so does that mean that 3d stereoscopic or 3d anaglyph conversions are banned? what's the difference between a 3d picture made for 3d glasses and a 3d picture made for a 3ds?

supersteve said:
so does that mean that 3d stereoscopic or 3d anaglyph conversions are banned? what's the difference between a 3d picture made for 3d glasses and a 3d picture made for a 3ds?

Reasonable argument. I don't own 3D Glasses any more than I own a 3DS, but I hold that the stereoscopic pics are just as valid reposts.

RedOctober said:
Reasonable argument. I don't own 3D Glasses any more than I own a 3DS, but I hold that the stereoscopic pics are just as valid reposts.

Stereoscopic jpgs are visibly different from normal jpgs because they have two images side-by-side. In fact, there's no file format difference between a jpg and an sjpg (or jps), the latter just means that some programs (for use with shutter glasses or other stereoscopic 3d technology) will split the image in half and show the left half to the left eye and the right half to the right eye.

Anaglyphic 3d images are visibly different because of the red/cyan offset.

3DS 3d images are not visibly different. The mpo image format concatenates two jpgs end-to-end in the file, with some zeroes in between to align the start of the second image to a specific multiple number of bytes. By the jpg file format that means an mpo can be renamed to jpg to only show the first image in the file. This is why they'll keep getting flagged as reposts: without a special mpo image reader, there is no way to tell when an image is a stereoscopic mpo and when it's a vanilla jpg.

I'm with the admins here in that I don't feel it's appropriate to allow an exception for reposts that cannot be verified without a 3DS or stereoscopic 3D hardware and special image reading software. It's too niche, and it's only going to make the admins' lives harder as well-meaning users identify what they sincerely believe are reposts, and have no way of determining otherwise.

ikdind said:
3DS 3d images are not visibly different.

I'm with the admins here in that I don't feel it's appropriate to allow an exception for reposts that cannot be verified without a 3DS or stereoscopic 3D hardware and special image reading software.

I guess I didn't quite follow that there were literally no differences to the viewer, because I don't know how the 3DS does its thing. If it requires running it through particular hardware or software to make sure it's not just a repost, then it makes sense to treat them like reposts. My bad.

RedOctober said:
I guess I didn't quite follow that there were literally no differences to the viewer, because I don't know how the 3DS does its thing. If it requires running it through particular hardware or software to make sure it's not just a repost, then it makes sense to treat them like reposts. My bad.

There is a subtle difference between the original png and the mpo that was deleted, asides from the text:

http://www.e621.net/data/63/46/63464b252b45d4973b04bae2c8d32ec4.png

http://www.e621.net/data/b0/a6/b0a6008eb4032ac9c7b2f0900689fa67.jpg

And for reference, here's the back-half of the mpo, which you can extract with the xvi32 freeware hex editor:
http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/3628/testju.jpg

Now here's where I'm going to gripe that this is actually a pretty poor attempt at making the original image "3d". As you can see by comparing the front and back halves of the mpo, the whole plane of the original image was just rotated a little, so the image still looks flat when the two are put together.

If you're going to make an image stereoscopic, a much better way to do it is to use software that allows you to specify a heightmap across the entire image. Internally the software uses the heightmap data to create a 3d model of the scene that's textured by the original image data, and it then re-projects the 3d scene into 2 separate images, though there can be some problems with filling in background.

Unfortunately, I only know that software to do this exists. I've seen the results on other boorus and imageboards, sometimes with accompanying heightmaps to "open-source" the stereoscopy process. However, I don't know what that software is and I don't have time to Google for it right now.

Yeah, I could see us allowing these images if they're actually 3D. If they're just skewed so it doesn't actually add anything to the image...no.