Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mars Space Graphics Software

Mars In 3D 62

Posted by CmdrTaco from the next-lets-blow-bubbles dept.
xaositects writes "Now I know all of you have your 3D glasses from 1985 still, so don them once again to check out these cool 3D images of Mars's Arctic landscape from the Phoenix Lander's stereoscopic imager. There are also a few close-ups of the parts of Phoenix that are in view and a link to more pictures on the Phoenix Image Gallery."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mars In 3D More

Mars In 3D

Comments Filter:

  • The obligatory.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24, 2008 @11:09AM (#24319983)

    "My eyes! The goggles do nothing!"

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by hesiod ( 111176 )

      ...and true. I spent a whole minute looking at four images (happened to have a pair of R/B 3d glasses at work, amazingly) and another 4 minutes for my eyes to start working properly again.

      • that's because (Score:5, Informative)

        by ClioCJS ( 264898 ) <cliocjs+slashdot.gmail@com> on Thursday July 24, 2008 @12:14PM (#24321191) Homepage Journal
        You need to turn your glasses backwards/inside out/blue red instead of red blue. Silly NASA.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hesiod ( 111176 )

          Aaaaaah. I turned the blue one inside out and made the red one backwards, flipped them around and then over, and thanks to your insightful suggestion, I am now blind. Thank you very much, Slashdot! *mock rage*

          • To be clearer - when using normal 3-d glasses, the right [ i believe ] eye gets the red (like with RCA cables, the red cable is usually the right channel - I guess because both start with "R"), and the left gets the blue. But these images definitely worked better on my 52-inch HDTV in max resolution with blue on the right eye, and red on the left.

            I've been a fan of 3-d for a good 20+ yrs, have several kinds of glasses, am big into optical illusions, have had 20/20 vision my whole life (though this 52-inch

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Svippy ( 876087 )

      "My eyes! The goggles do nothing!"

      Ooh, it actually reminded me of a Futurama quote.

      Fry: The 3D's great!
      Leela: Mine's not working!

      But I guess that's not obligatory...

    • HAH! I know I'd have use of them. Thank god i never throw anything away. All those pizza boxes will be usefull too.. I swear!

  • 1985 (Score:5, Funny)

    by BPPG ( 1181851 ) <bppg1986@gmail.com> on Thursday July 24, 2008 @11:10AM (#24320003)

    Now I know all of your have your 3D glasses from 1985...

    I was born in late 1986, you insensitive clod!

    • in that case
      GET OFF MY LAWN!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )

      It's worse than that; it uses the old fashioned red-blue glasses from the 1950s ('40s?) rather than the newer polarized glasses from the '80s (70s?). Of course, the polarized glasses will only work on a projected image so it's a good thing they used the old method.

      You're almost as old as my daughters. Thanks for reminding me of my geezerhood, you insensitive clod!

    • Re:1985 (Score:4, Funny)

      by MobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) on Thursday July 24, 2008 @12:54PM (#24322045)

      I was born in late 1986, you insensitive clod!

      What a coincidence... I lost my virginity in early 1986!

      • I was born in late 1986, you insensitive clod!

        What a coincidence... I lost my virginity in early 1986!

        Mom?!

  • Hannah Montana (Score:3, Informative)

    by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) on Thursday July 24, 2008 @11:13AM (#24320059) Homepage Journal

    If you wander by a Wal-Mart, you can probably still find a display full of 3D goggles for the upcoming Hannah Montana concert video.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by thedak ( 833551 )
      sweet! I can pick up both!
      • I think she's a little underage for most of the Slashdot crowd. Maybe you should try picking up the video instead.
    • so that you can see her jee hoovies in 3D coz you know ... (giggle) (giggle)

  • 2d mars was getting so old...

  • separated images available? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by radarsat1 ( 786772 ) on Thursday July 24, 2008 @11:20AM (#24320151) Homepage

    Does anyone know if they post the left and right images separately anywhere?

    For those of us who don't have immediate access to a pair of red-blue glasses, there are other ways..

    For instance, they could provide an animated gif of both images alternating, which gives you a 3D impression as if you're moving your head to the left and right. This doesn't require glasses and can be a pretty effective way to get an image to "pop out" without actually being stereoscopic.

    • Re:separated images available? (Score:5, Funny)

      by dredwerker ( 757816 ) on Thursday July 24, 2008 @12:02PM (#24320925)

      For instance, they could provide an animated gif of both images alternating, which gives you a 3D impression as if you're moving your head to the left and right. This doesn't require glasses and can be a pretty effective way to get an image to "pop out" without actually being stereoscopic.

      Are we still talking about Hannah Montana?

    • General gripe about 3D formats. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Chatsubo ( 807023 ) on Thursday July 24, 2008 @12:34PM (#24321651)

      So many places make these shitty R/B images available and not the seperate image pairs. There are many ways to display a 3D image, you've mentioned one. There's also free-viewing, where you cross your eyes and actually get a much better result than viewing with R/B glasses (no colour augmentation, no ghosting). And then there's my personal favourite, LCD shutter glasses (some ghosting, but no need to strain your eye muscles, and you can view a full screen).

      Of course, you can create the R/B image from pairs, but not the other way around, at the very least, places that want to make 3D content available should provide both options.

      I've noted the item earlier this week about a standard emerging sometime soon for 3D broadcasting. I can't wait.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by djmurdoch ( 306849 )

        In the case of these images, the left image is entirely in the red bits in the image, and the right image is the sum of blue and green, so you can separate them, if you've got any image processing software. (Or did I get left and right reversed?)

        • Didn't think of that. Of course in general the above still applies to colour images that are R/B.

          My photoshop skills aren't that great so the two sides ended up not having the same luminosity for some reason, whatever it works.

          You'll notice the red channel (right for the left eye) looks quite full of artifacts when compared to the cyan (left for the right eye) image.

          http://bayimg.com/HAJjPAABp [bayimg.com]

          • Hmm. I just realized that's a copyrighted image... Taking it down sorry.

            • Re:General gripe about 3D formats. (Score:4, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24, 2008 @03:17PM (#24324835)

              Hmm. I just realized that's a copyrighted image... Taking it down sorry.

              Leave it up. Work products of the U.S. Government (ie. any pictures from NASA) are public domain with a few exceptions that don't apply here. Just because someone sticks a copyright notice on something doesn't make it copyrighted.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kiaser Zohsay ( 20134 )

      For those of us who don't have immediate access to a pair of red-blue glasses, there are other ways..

      I prefer cross eye freeviewing.

    • You can find the raw images from the Surface Stereo Imager here:
      http://www1.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/raw/SSI/ssi_topgallery_collection_archive_1.html [nasa.gov]

      This is the SSI itself:
      http://www1.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/spacecraft/ssi.html [nasa.gov]

      Personally, my preferred method of 3D viewing is the oldskool Stereoscope [wikipedia.org].

    • I have the professional style of anaglyph glasses like NASA guys tend to use. I still have a lot of trouble making the images combine. Particularly the ones where there is a lot of seperation and thereby a lot of depth. Other ones with less depth and seperation work really well for me.

  • 1985? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Now I know all of you have your 3D glasses from 1958

    There, fixed that for ya.

  • No worky... (Score:5, Funny)

    by eln ( 21727 ) on Thursday July 24, 2008 @11:28AM (#24320299)

    I'm blind in one eye you blue-tinted insensitive clods!

  • Psh (Score:5, Funny)

    by neokushan ( 932374 ) on Thursday July 24, 2008 @11:32AM (#24320379)

    Go into any good supermarket and you can pick up a full 3D model of Mars for pennies. Screw the 3D glasses, you can feel the ridges on it yourself, even dig to find if there really IS water beneath the surface.
    So far, all I've found is Nougat and Caramel, though...

  • Mars is 3D? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Daimanta ( 1140543 ) on Thursday July 24, 2008 @11:40AM (#24320521) Journal

    Who would have thought?

  • I don't know if it's their server from the slashdot effect, but the first link from the summary takes me to a page with little but google ads, a link to the story (which just reloads the page) and a link to a list of other stories by the author. It is completely useless.

    The second link in the summary leads to the NASA site, and it actually has the pictures. They're (of course) the old fashioned red/blue stereo pictures that you can use in a monitor or TV set, and not the newer polarized stereo glasses.

  • Was that sand and pebbles? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by oodaloop ( 1229816 ) on Thursday July 24, 2008 @11:51AM (#24320723)
    I can walk outside and see that in 3D anytime I want.
    • what is this "outside" you speak of? i don't see the link.
    • Be fair. It's another planet in the kind of detail that most people on Earth have never seen. Granted the topography itself isn't very interesting, but it's Mars for God's sake.
  • Citation needed, but I trust my own eyes: If you have 3-D glasses, you'll need to fold them inside out / turn them backwards / invert the red and blue. These pictures have red & blue inverted compared to most 3-D images. NASA has it backwards, if you will. The results were MUCH better looking and MUCH less painful with glasses on backwards. With "normal" glasses, my wife & I were both quite confused as to why it sucked so bad. It didn't. NASA just does red blue backwards.

    • I did that and well.. they do nothing!!

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by ClioCJS ( 264898 )
        Oh they definitely do something. It's not my fault if you can't see it. You probably can't do stereograms either. :P

        I can also attest that it helps to view full resolution on a 52-inch HDTV :D

    • Not true. I know it still looks 3D then, but the red image is for the left eye and the blue the right. It is easy to check the images, especially the ones that include the lander. Just close one eye and compare the shift for anything close up and you'll see it matches. Of course that is assuming my 3D glasses are just like everyone's. As I said.. red lens on the left.
      • I actually ahve never thrown away a pair in my life, and keep a pile below my TV at all times. They come from different sources and different parts of the country, and all tend to have red on the right.

        So you may have gotten lucky in having glasses already reversed!

        Or maybe I am VERY unlucky.

        • @ClintJCL - Turns out you are very unlucky. Per the Wiki link [wikipedia.org] in a comment below, the red should, in fact be on the left, which matches both the NASA images and the glasses [ebay.com] I have. Obviously we can all sleep better tonight knowing the facts. ;-)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ihmhi ( 1206036 )

      This is probably due to my lack of understanding on how 3-D works, but can't someone just flip the image horizontally?

      • I THINK it would have to be re-photographed, or re-colored (which wouldn't work very well).

        3-D works by using 2 cameras that are the same width across as the average width between the average human eyes (which may explain why some people can see them better than others).

        So to flip it, you would essentially have to photograph both pictures again with opposite red/blue tints on the cameras.

        If this was a photoshop file with 2 separate layers for each eye, you could LIKELY be able to re-color each layer (

    • If you have 3-D glasses, you'll need to fold them inside out / turn them backwards / invert the red and blue. The results were MUCH better looking and MUCH less painful with glasses on backwards.

      This is the 21st century. On slashdot. No one thinks to flip the image??? Seriously. Folding your glasses inside out?... I guess that is much less painful than swapping your eyeballs from left to right though...

      • No one thinks to flip the image???

        In order for the 3D to work properly, the image from the right camera must wind up being viewed from the right eye, and ditto for the left. If the right image is seen by the left eye, and the left image is seen by the right eye, the perspective winds up backwards, and the 3D doesn't work.

        It is the color that passes through the filter of the 3D glasses that determines which image the eye sees. Flipping the image horizontally does not change the color, so it will not

  • Why these green/red thingies? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Thursday July 24, 2008 @01:30PM (#24322787) Journal
    The glasses look admittedly geeky but steroscopic projection has come a long way since 1985. Better than even the polarized glasses are the LCD shutter based glasses. They effectively have LCDs that will black out the left eye and then the right eye some 30, 60 or 120 times a second. The glasses are synched with a display that will show left image when left eye lens is clear and right eye's view when right lens is clear. Thus most CAD models and CGI images leap out of your plain LCD display screens.

    What is more important almost all the 3D Computer Generated Images have depth information already to do hidden line removal. Thus there are already displays in the market to render any OpenGL or similar input into stereoscopic projection. So yeah, it is getting more and more popular in CAD, CGI worlds.

    Sorry don't have time to search and post links to these technologies, but they are easy enough to find using google.

  • They should have made the Face on Mars 3D.

    I would have liked to see that in 3D,
    and then scoff and say 'That looks Nothing like a face!'

    when the secret is, no one likes to makes eye-contact with me.

  • If you would like to see more 3-D Mars Phoenix images I created several (ok, 192) 3-D pictures and posted them to this picture set [flickr.com]. For the most part, I used the highest resolution images available. There may be some dupes -- especially from the first few Sols as I got the hang of making these images using PaintShopPro and the importance of getting the left/right in the right order with proper alignment. The revised versions are denoted with "V2" or "V3". There are also a couple animated GIFs I put toge

  • The Parallax View (Score:2, Interesting)

    by d'baba ( 1134261 )

    I'd guess the reason they don't use anything more expensive than 1920's technology [wikipedia.org] is that you don't really get anything for it except the cool factor. Note also that the term 'cool' is one of those nebulous characterizations that's been around almost as long.

    I keep a pair of red/blue 'glasses' (my current pair is from celebrateexpress.com) and a pair of polarized ones for snitz and giggles but I would like someone to tell me what kind of real, useful information you can get from these parlor tricks. I'd th

  • If you go http://www.marssociety.nl/3dbrillen.php [marssociety.nl]
    and can read Dutch, (Or don't mind just looking at the pictures?) or don't mind the translators.

    I have a pair of the wayfarer look alikes, and they are nice. (But inverting them is - not fun.)

    And of course the nice side is you get to support the cause.

  • I have a bunch of those glasses here. Some with a greenish blue right ride, some with a more orangeish red left side. Some with true blue and true red sides. But every time I attempt to use them singularly or in combination (best match to the pictures), my left eye always tends to get messed up and I can't look at the pictures too long. :(

    Oh well, I guess I had to vent. Sorry about that.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close