 #... |
|---|
|
I have started producing all of my images in 3D with StarTools. Once I have an image processed as TIFF or JPG, I click on one button called 3D and an HTML file is created where I can view a 3D image in my browser. It is amazing. Check these examples from StarTools. 3D - Edge-on Cigar 3D - Orion Horse Flocculent Galaxy Flaming Star nebula Clear skies |
1.51
#... |
|---|
| Sorry, not a fan. |
0.00
#... |
|---|
That is just weird !  I hope it's not the future. just mt 2 cents. |
6.06
#... |
|---|
Eric Kallgren: It has as much future as 3D television. |
 #... |
|---|
|
You an also try the following method https://www.astrobin.com/178692/?nc=user |
1.20
#... |
|---|
|
This... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/amazing-astrophotography-lets-you-see-nebulae-in-3d-25351639/ |
#... |
|---|
Alan: Hi Alan, I am familiar with stereoscopy, images sde by side, 3D models etc. Thank you for sharing. |
#... |
|---|
This...https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/amazing-astrophotography-lets-you-see-nebulae-in-3d-25351639/ Hi Kurious George, Yes, that is an amazing model. I have generated about 10 3D model and these 3D models for me, bring a different and higher level of understanding of a dso. So far, I have all the Hubble LA images I have processed, Orion, Flaming star, Jellyfish, Jumping Fish, Horsehead in 3D. for me, the 3D model provide more details and understanding of the dso structure, something I could not resolve in 2D. I know, these models are not perfect, however, I believe the models will be refined and it will be amazing, that is now, and in the future. As you can see from the top posts, not everyone like 3D. The example you are showing here is totally great for me. I wish I could share my 3D images with the community, but it requires 'allowing embeded html', and I don't think I can do this on Astrobin. Thank you for sharing. CS |
|
1.20
#... |
|---|
|
Sure thing! This 3D technology will evolve. You should be able to convert your images to .gif to post on Astrobin with some pre-defined movement as you did here and used here... https://www.astrobin.com/327338/0/ Check out some of the animations on "How the Universe Works". They make the Milky Way stars move past the stationary distant stars and objects. This gives a great feeling for distance. |
#... |
|---|
Sure thing! This 3D technology will evolve. You should be able to convert your images to .gif to post on Astrobin with some pre-defined movement as you did here and used here...https://www.astrobin.com/327338/0/ Wow, KuriousGeorge, thank you for sharing this image with me. Very amazing, and great. Keep safe and clear skies |
0.00
#... |
|---|
I probably wouldn't go as far as the future of astrophotography imaging - the depth information is wholly based on educated guesses by an algorithm. I, for one, would not want a future based on assumptions or educated guesses.  Nevertheless these sorts of pseudo, stereo or VR renditions may be quite valuable as a tool to - quite literally - lend a fresh perspective to what you captured. This perspective (if based on sound assumptions about the physics going on) may well help you decide to process an image differently. For example, many astrophotographers - consciously or unconsciously - make the assumption that if something is black, it is automatically sitting in the background, with similar assumptions about bright objects sitting in the foreground. These 3D renditions challenge these pre-conceived notions by generating 3D depth information based on some common rules/assumptions on gas and radiation behavior. Given the popularity of luminance or range mask crutches in many software applications, such an assumption may well be detrimental to your images; brightness does not correlate with importance! Often times, we can only see dark objects (or their outlines) by virtue of them obscuring something brighter. Bok globules are good examples of such self-contained dark structures. Similarly bright DSO cores are often embedded and shrouded by enveloping gas. HII areas often have cavities (The Rosette is a great example of this) where fierce stellar winds of O and B-class blue giants are blowing away the gas and dust of their nursery. And so on. If you like astronomy and/or practice astrophotography, it is worth thinking about the objects you capture as 3D objects. This tool is meant to help with that. It may well serve to better inform you next time you choose to use a local dynamic range optimisation tool for example. The local detail you are bringing out may well be shrouded in gas or remnants of its birth. Negating the diffuse gas that it is shrouded in may well be compromising a faithful rendering. Realising this you now have a better informed choice to make. Clear skies! |
0.00
#... |
|---|
| Sorry I don't get it. It just looks like it's warping the image, it doesn't look 3D whatsoever. |
#... |
|---|
 <<I saw a comment about the 2.5D renderings to the effect of"all it seems to do is warp the image". Some people indeed have trouble "seeing" a depth effect via a mere parallax effect. If you find a viewer cannot readily perceive a depth effect, ask them to close one eye. This sort of "switches" the brain into a mode where depth cues are solely processed via parallax movement.>> 8) |
#... |
|---|
|
3D - Flocculent Galaxy 3D-Flocculent Galaxy (HLA data) |
#... |
|---|
| 3D - Edge-on Cigar Galaxy |
