(08-01-2011, 07:16 AM)Terridax Wrote: I'm 90% sure that's not going to make it a 3d image. For 3d to work, you need two different images of the same subject. For example, you would take a picture of that girl you used in the example, then move the camera about 3 inches to the right and take another picture. This is to emulate the image that you would see out of each eye.
The way you have done it, it might cause the whole image to look like it's popping in/out, but it will still appear to be a flat image.
It's a form of 3D. Named Anaglyph. The one you're talking about it another form of 3D. But thanks for your input.
(08-01-2011, 07:16 AM)Terridax Wrote: I'm 90% sure that's not going to make it a 3d image. For 3d to work, you need two different images of the same subject. For example, you would take a picture of that girl you used in the example, then move the camera about 3 inches to the right and take another picture. This is to emulate the image that you would see out of each eye.
The way you have done it, it might cause the whole image to look like it's popping in/out, but it will still appear to be a flat image.
It's a form of 3D. Named Anaglyph. The one you're talking about it another form of 3D. But thanks for your input.