Monthly Archives: April 2010


With all of the confusion regarding the term 3D I decided to trademark AMPED 3D, AMPED being an acronym for:


AMPED 3D photography really describes the type of 3D I’m doing in a concise way and, hopefully, will help to differentiate my product. From now on, I intend to use it and incorporporate its use into all of my writings, website information and literature.

I also like it that AMPED implies energized and a sense of being “jacked up” in an amplified way. If you think about it, stereovision energizes our perception of the space around us and unlocks our awareness of other enhancing perception cues.

This ties in nicely with my next blog post, coming soon: “Secondary depth cues unlock ambiguity and reinforce stereovision’s immersive qualities”.

Stay tuned!

 AMPED 3Dis a registered trademark of Almont Green.


Leave a comment

Filed under 3D, 3D Photography, autostereoscopic

Blog Neglect… Sorry!

I apologize for neglecting my blog but I’ve been having a debate over at the LinkedIN Stereoscopic 3-D Professionals Worldwide group. There is at least one person who thinks that focus and convergence don’t happen and/or isn’t important or something such as that which confused the heck out of me…

He made a bunch of empirical statements and I challenged him and ignored his flames and insults. I engaged him in a professional manner and the net result of what I got out of the exchange is that he thinks that because of eye geometry and eye spacing that somehow a special angle of projection alignment can create distortion free, error free 3D.

Folks, that is snake oil if I ever heard it.

To justify his case he said he has blurry vision for things up close and that somehow proves that rivalry or discomfort doesn’t exist. My opinion is that the brain is very plastic and adaptable and when we lose vision acuity, we get cataracs or experience eye damage and disease – that the brain adapts to the altered sensory input. I believe the brain is constantly adapting and interpreting sensory input and learns to discard conflicting information and make the most of what it is receiving.


The brain also responds to GAINING sensory information and incorporates things like motion parallax cues and shadow cues and atmosphereic distortion cues and even an eyeglasses prescription changes to augment our perception. Perhaps vision exercises could also improve our ability to perceive things in an enhanced way. It is one of many issues I plan on taking up with Dr. Maino in the coming weeks.

Again, apologies for the delay posting content. I’ll have some interesting commentary on human perception coming soon… Stay tuned and please comment if you have something specific you are interested in exploring with me!

1 Comment

Filed under stereovision, vision therapy

3D – Present A Different Image To Each Eye – Simple, Right? Wrong!

Those of us with “normal” vision see the world with our two eyes in 3D all of the time. We see the space between things and perceive distance, size, texture, etc.

It’s different when you go to a 3D movie or look at one of my autostereoscopic photographs because you are looking at a flat surface and perceive 3D by way of an optical illusion. There are many subtle differences (and many not so subtle) between normal “seeing” and watching a 3D movie that are important to understand and consider. The biggest difference is that for normal viewing the 3D is “real”. You see an object in front of another object and you perceive the distance. When you reach out to touch the object, that perception is verified. A 3D movie on the other hand is created with an optical illusion. It is made possible because our eyes/brain has an amazing capability to decouple focus from convergence and see and perceive the illusion as if it were real.

Some of you are asking, “What does decouple focus from convergence mean?“.

For normal viewing our eyes focus and converge on the same point in space (the thing we are looking at). Just like separate camera lenses, each eye focuses on an object independently. Then our brain processes those two retinal images into a single image with depth. Because the focusing and merging is done separately, we can perform a trick whereby we fool the brain into processing retinal images that converge at a different point from focus. The only thing the brain cares about is the alignment, size and similarity of the images on each retina. It doesn’t matter what the focusing distance is. Our brain just totally disregards this disparity… or does it? Since most people seem to be able to perceive 3D looking at 3D movies, we just make that assumption. My guess is that our brain does enable our perception of focus distance but that we suppress the conflict that happens with a 3D movie in the same way we suppress other perception conflicts (think flying in an airplane for example where our inner ear conflicts with what we see). Perhaps some of us aren’t able to suppress this conflict as easily and manifest some sort of discomfort with the experience; like getting a headache or feeling nausea.

However, it is generally thought of as a “given” that this isn’t a big deal and that perception conflicts occur in nature and the brain just “handles it”. I think that is probably true – but I’m not a scientist or doctor and it would be nice to read that my opinion has some basis in true science.  Perhaps it does and someone will comment?

You still might be wondering how a 3D movie decouples focus from convergence. The fact is that it has to do that. The motion picture screen has to be the point of focus at all times. That is the source of the reflected light and the focus point of the projector in the back of the theater. The left eye and right eye images will be offset from each other based upon whether the objects depicted are in front of the screen or going into the screen. The eyes converge or diverge to align the objects on screen but the point of focus is always the screen surface. At this point, I just have to jump up and down and say THAT IS PRETTY AMAZING!!!  Our brain is really incredible and adaptable in a way that we don’t even have to think about.

Stay tuned for more… coming soon ;^)


Filed under 3D, 3D Motion Picture, S3D, stereovision

Stereoscopic Multi Perspective Cross View Example

Below is an example that shows pairs of perspectives in an animated presentation. The left basketball is setup to be viewed by your right eye and the right basketball should be viewed by your left eye. The two tiny gray squares at the very top are used to help you cross your eyes. What happens is as you cross your eyes the dots will move inward and when they are on top of each other your eyes will be crossed in a way that aligns the two different images to a point where you can fuse them into a single view with depth. It can be tricky to do and many people have a great deal of difficulty but I encourage you to give it a go.  Of course, my autostereoscopic 3D photographs don’t require you to cross your eyes and you see the hoop stick out of the photograph in a natural way.

1 Comment

Filed under S3D, stereovision

Stereovision and Neuromarketing

Neuromarketing – the study of the brain’s responses to advertising was introduced by neuroscientist Read Montague in the October 2004 publication of Neuron. In that publication Montague showed how the medial prefrontal cortex — a part of the brain that controls higher thinking — would light up in brain imaging scans in different ways in response to marketing tests between Coke and Pepsi. But increased activity in the brain doesn’t necessarily mean increased preference for a brand or product.  It mearly shows that different activity is taking place and further study is required to interpret the data.

What if, in addition to advertising content, a different mode of perceiving an advertisement was added? When humans engage stereopsis (seeing a single image with depth using two eyes) looking at a 3D photo for example, different brain activity is observed as compared to when a flat 2D image is presented.

When humans engage the stereopsis process I have observed that they perceive a realness to what they are looking at. Depending upon the content, they also demonstrate a strong emotional response unlike anything I have ever observed before.  For example, at a 3D poster test at a Yankee Candle store in Deerfield, Massachusetts I observed people calling to other people to come and look at a sign announcing Santa’s arrival the following weekend. “Look at that picture, it looks like you can tug on Santa’s beard.”

I’ve never seen a regular poster generate that kind of behaviour. People would look at the poster and point and touch and engage it for minutes as compared to seconds for a regular poster.

I submit that the reason for the excitement wasn’t that the poster was 3D. The poster, while having multiple perspectives, didn’t jump out and grab people. It wasn’t bewilderment or anything overt. The excitement was over a level of realness that engaged as they looked at the poster. The poster depicted something they enjoyed looking at; Santa talking to a young girl with a cute expression.  And they were rewarded by looking at it when they realized that they could perceive the poster in a real way. They could see and perceive the space between Santa and the girl and even the space between the hairs in Santa’s beard. Everything about the poster was depicted in a real way. The lighting, the size of the poster, the amount of depth, the level of detail and dozens of other elements were carefully crafted to make this poster as real as possible. This unexpected realness generated an emotional response that people were compelled to share with others and to prolong for an amazing amount of time.

The ramifications of these observations as it applies to advertising are considerable.  For more information about our findings please contact us.

Leave a comment

Filed under stereopsis, stereovision