Stereoscopic GIFs alternate between the left and right images of a stereogram, capturing the same image from two different vantage points positioned inches apart. Instead of layering the resulting images on top of one another to create a 3D effect, the artist turns them into animated GIFs, twitching ever so slightly from the minuscule difference in perspective. The resulting effect creates images that have a sense of depth and three dimensional quality to them, without the need for those annoying glasses. WARNING: Staring at the following images for more than a coffee break or two might cause serious damage to your workflow.
The next two are from Portland-based art director Matt Moore. You can check out his Tumblr here.
Comments (22)
Comment
- subscribe /
- give a gift /
- terms of service /
- about /
- contact us /
- write for us /
- ad info /
- subscriber services /
- press /
- privacy policy /
- rss /
© 2012 Mental Floss Inc. All Rights Reserved. Mental Floss is a registered trademark owned by Felix Dennis. mentalfloss.com is a trademark owned by Felix Dennis.
Disclaimer: All submissions made to mental_floss become the property of Mental Floss Inc and may be used without further permission by the submitter and without compensation to the submitter. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not submit anything to mental_floss.
Great post! Does Ransom know you did this, he kinda has the market on all things photo-related. J/k Flosser 4 Life!
posted by Scott on 8-9-2011 at 1:41 pm
@Scott – heh heh. Randy and I are connected at the brain.
posted by David K. Israel on 8-9-2011 at 2:13 pm
Sorry if I can’t get worked up over this, probably because I still shoot real photos with real film. This is just high-tech photo manips courtesy of the computer age.
What’s next? Taking Ansel Adams’ images of Yosemite and Half Dome and “enhancing” them electronically? Or taking some of Philippe Halsman’s “jumping” photographs and turning them into endless animated loops?
As has been said before, just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should do it.
-”BB”-
posted by Bicycle Bill on 8-9-2011 at 2:47 pm
Trippy! I expected this to be a Ransom post too :)
posted by Drea on 8-9-2011 at 2:59 pm
@ BBill -
People have been manipulating photos as long as they’ve been taking them. Even Ansel Adams developed techniques to enhance his photos, it just wasn’t done electronically.
I find stereoscopic images fascinating, especially ones that I take that reflect things and events in my life. Makes them feel real again to me, and not just a pleasant memory.
I kinda wish I had taken a stereoscopic image of my sister. Not that it would bring her back, but it would be nice to see that image now and again.
posted by eKim on 8-9-2011 at 3:01 pm
@BBill – you do realize that a few of these are from real photos with real film? Notice the defects on the one with the foreground guy and background guy/girl, or the Brooklyn Bridge and asian ladies? People have been doing stereoscopic images for well over a century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy
posted by Joel on 8-9-2011 at 3:17 pm
@Bicycle Bill: You’re the guy that calls the cops just as the party is getting good, and tells neighborhood kids to stay off your yard, aren’t you?
posted by kevrhon on 8-9-2011 at 3:39 pm
haha oh Bill. You obviously don’t know too much about photography. Very few finished photos are unedited.
posted by Jess on 8-9-2011 at 5:20 pm
These are cool. I’ve seen this kind of thing before, but never more than two frames for one photo. I like the smoother look of having more information.
And BBill, there are plenty of film cameras that can do this.
posted by Sillstaw on 8-9-2011 at 7:32 pm
Hry Bill, why don’t you crwl back in your trash can. Nobody likes a grouch (except for maybe Oscar, and only in small doses). I’ve seen your comments on several articles and the following saying always comes to mind: “If you can’s say something nice, pound sand until you’ve learned to keep your negativity to yourself! Just sayin’…
posted by The Anti-BB on 8-9-2011 at 10:19 pm
I still take real photos with real film and I edit them in the darkroom. Do you crop, burn, dodge, use filters, or use nose grease on scratches? Then you are manipulating your photos. Some people do it in ways that don’t kill animals, hurt the environment and cause cancer. Get over it.
Many of these were from old stereoscopes and while the cards are plentiful in antique shops, the viewers themselves are rare so consider this an opportunity to show the images off to the next generation, and get them interested in something over a hundred years old.
posted by Dani on 8-10-2011 at 2:00 am
The faster it moves, the worse effect – like in the old bridge photo – slow it down and insert close to the fast one and you’ll see the difference. I love the photo with lady and fountain – the water drops make it so much realistic looking.
And they move quite fluidly – it seems some image morphing editor was used…
posted by Leszek Cyfer on 8-10-2011 at 4:05 am
Bicycle Bill = Debbie Downer
posted by Craig on 8-10-2011 at 9:01 am
While I appreciate the idea of them, the twitchy feeling of viewing the pictures makes me nervous.
posted by nancy pants on 8-10-2011 at 1:23 pm
I’ll vouch for BB and state that usually he contributes very thoughtful insightful comments to MF.
This must have been a bad day.
Hope you’re doing good Bicycle Bill!
posted by xanderjones on 8-10-2011 at 3:48 pm
No one has mentioned the 3DS? I’ve really gotten into 3D photography with it.
posted by Cory on 8-10-2011 at 5:53 pm
I don’t like animated stereoscopic images. It is quite easy once you get used to it to trick your eyes into focusing on the double image and seeing it in 3d.
posted by Aberline on 8-11-2011 at 8:11 pm
BicycleBill: If Ansel Adams had had access to modern editing technology like Photoshop, trust me, HE WOULD HAVE USED THEM.
posted by BigJohn on 8-14-2011 at 3:45 pm
While these are kinda cool to look at (for half a second) I prefer pictures that I can frame and hang up on my wall. You could only really look at these on the computer, or an electronic frame right? Cool we have the technology, etc, but not for me.
posted by Jeri on 8-14-2011 at 6:09 pm
I meant to write that Adams “would have used IT”…. (Photoshop) Not “them.”
As for Jeri’s comment, yes, these are destined to be shown only through technology, not hung on a wall in a frame. 3D Movies and TV are technologically complex, and because of the need for dorky glasses, 3D TV will never be a success. The big consumer electronics companies are losing their shirts on 3D.
posted by BigJohn on 8-15-2011 at 5:16 pm
I would assume that the images like the first one with the guy and the pigeons were taken with 4 small cameras firing simultaneously. Any other theories?
posted by BigJohn on 8-15-2011 at 5:17 pm
The constant movement on these examples gives me a migraine.
posted by Mama9cats on 8-22-2011 at 4:19 pm