Found a guy on instagram who builds a custom stereoscopic camera with 4 identical pi cams spaced evenly (about 1 inch (2.54cm)) away from each other on a line. It creates wigglegrams
https://k4mera.world/
I’ll shill a library I wrote to make wigglegrams & stereograms in matplotlib - I think pseudo-3D visualization is super underrated as a technique to understand data!
mpl_stereo: https://github.com/scottshambaugh/mpl_stereo
i find it so easy to "switch" to 3D with pairs of images like this, it strikes me as strange that cheap stereo-3D isn't a standard interface element.
Other than getting used to making the switch, I don't think there is any cognitive load. Just pairing normal lens focus with a different triangulation distance, which is something we quickly learn to do without thinking when using any glasses or lenses.
I find it a lot more calming than Wiggle-D. And paired with some simple head/eye tracking via laptop cams, it could be really versatile.
The animated plots are great. Be great to have a trackpad rotatable version. (And the need/benefit for head tracking gets really obvious when I move. The perception of reverse/non-sensical dynamics is strong.)
That was fun, and the script on github looks hand-written which is refreshing after having been reading AI-written code for months.
I have 120k photos in iCloud that I'm sure have duplicates (I exported my library to Google Photos years ago and exported it back to iCloud). The iOS duplicate detection stopped flagging duplicates for me to merge a while back. I gotta do something like this script...
The Nintendo 3DS has two cameras on the back, so you can turn its 3D photos into wigglegrams. I made a web app that does this automatically, it has a few demos where you can mess with offset or timing: https://wiggle3ds.moonlemon.nexus/
It's neat how the offset affects focal point. To my eye they look best when the main object is kept fairly stationary, and the further away you are the faster the wiggle speed should be.
I agree. The first three from reddit work really well for me. I assume it's because of the fixed horizontal movement, and the fact that they are captured at the same moment from different angles. :)
The others are nice (but hectic) animations to me.
Same. I have amblyopia and I'm really appreciating the effect. I think people's brain with "only one" eye rely a lot more onto perceptive and parallax effect for 3D perception.
I have often wondered how the effect was created where e.g. in a documentary you see historic black and white photographs slowly 'camera panning' or zooming somewhat from left to right with a perspective shift. Is that also created as a wigglegram on the basis of multiple photographs I wonder, at times where taking a single photograph was an involved process?
They have to take a source photo, decompose it into "layers" (lots of Photoshop I imagine) and then they can parallax the various layers for that depth effect.
On my Pixel phone I always leave enable the "Top Shot" setting, it saves a short low resolution video clip in the XMP/RDF metadata of the JPEG file. It saves motions that are not visible on a still image adding valuable information. iPhones and Samsungs have similar settings.
Could these use some frame interpolation and smoothing to make them less jerky? Or would that make them just a video clip then?
The first couple of examples were good but later examples were not so impressive. I think the later examples suffered from having too little of perspective change between frames and too much of subject movement -- which defeats the illusion of 3d from a "static" image.
Ideal one would have a left-to-right pan betweem the two clicks ..roughly matching the perspective shift between left eye and right eye ..while the subject stays static.
I also noticed on the wikipedia gallery theres an example that repeats frames for smoothness! 1-2-3-4-3-2 makes it naturally smooth if you have more than two frames.
I've noticed that GIFS with several frames in them tend to be quite large files. I like that these use dithering, which can reduce the file size. Ideally it would be not larger than 2-3 lightweight photos juxtaposed together, and less than 300KB. I also wish there was a pause button on them because sometimes reading articles on the web with them persistent can get tedious. I suppose disabling images can mediate that, or copying the text to another document.
"In Web Browsers (Chrome, Edge, Firefox): Install browser extensions like GIF Scrubber on Chrome or GIF Blocker on Firefox, which add playback controls to any web page.
On iPhone/iPad: Go to Settings > Accessibility > Motion, and turn off Animated Images to pause all GIFs in Safari.
On Mac: Go to System Settings > Accessibility > Display, and toggle off Animated Images.
In PowerPoint: Press the 1 key on your keyboard during a presentation to pause the GIF."
"Yes, but not natively just by using a standard <img> tag in web browsers. Because native APNGs play continuously like a traditional GIF, you need to use one of the following methods to pause them: [1, 2, 3, 4]
1. The Canvas Method (Best for Web Controls)
To add play/pause functionality, you cannot use an <img> tag. Instead, you need to render the APNG onto an HTML <canvas> element and control it using a JavaScript library like apng-js. This provides precise, video-like control over the frames. [1, 2, 3, 4]
2. The Cover Method (Simplest Fallback)
If you just want to freeze an APNG on its first frame, you can layer a static .png of the first frame directly over the APNG. When you uncover or hide the static image, the underlying APNG will be revealed and play as normal. [1]
3. Use CSS Animation Alternatives [1]
If you are designing the animation yourself, an alternative is to build it as a single static image (a filmstrip of all frames side-by-side) and animate it using CSS background-position. This allows you to pause the image natively using the CSS animation-play-state property. [1, 2, 3]"
for gifs? it seems an image format would be more backward compatible with older devices. Edit: by image format, i meant lightweight animation without a video codec.
I enjoy photos taken while people are speaking with the camera fixed. You can get some really unintentionally funny flips between facial expressions. Kinda like wigglegrams, I suppose.
I often take a very short video, under 5s, rather than a picture. Even 1-2 seconds captures dimension and sound in a different way than a still picture. I’ve had people say it’s strange but they work well for me.
Live photos on iOS are exactly that, by default, each time you take a picture, it embeds the 3 seconds before the shot and the 3 seconds after the shot as video with sound.
It looks like a useless feature on the moment because what you want is the nice framing you are trying to capture, but it happens to become an incredible feature years later when a long press on your photo makes your then baby smile and laugh.
It's a best of both world implementation because unlike just capturing a video, you still get your high quality, stabilized and sharp picture of the picture you capture PLUS the video.
If you have an iPhone, it does this automatically (provided you don't disable Live Photos). Quite fun to review all the random stereoscopy you have inadvertently created by having an unsteady grip on the camera...
Images at the top of the page are created using a Nimslo/Nishika camera [1] it's a 35mm 4 lens camera that takes all 4 shots at once so you get that satisfying rotating depth look at them.
It's really a completely different effect to just stitching a few different photos together.
I had a look at the top submissions on the /r/wigglegrams subreddit [0]. It seems that some (including some of those featured in the article) are the more prototypical stereoscopic wigglegram, whereas others are more a stylistic effect.
It's tech from the 80s. Look up the Nishika N8000 and Nimslo 3D.
Basically it's multiple lenses next to each other, each capturing a small slice on the 35mm film. Every lens has it's own shutter, which is triggered at exactly the same time.
This wasn't too involved and quite cheap to implement with analog tech in the 80s/90s, but if you want to do the same thing with digital there's quite a bit more to consider. Here's a cool video of someone building a digital stereo camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aofxbH0elo
The hard part with digital boils down to: Cheap camera modules are hard to calibrate to the same parameters and sometimes impossible to set focus, so pictures look the same. And taking pictures takes quite a bit of processing power, so if you want to take 4 pictures at once it gets a bit tricky with just a cheap raspberry or similar.
There is also the Fujifilm FinePix REAL 3D which is a 2 lens digital version of the idea. But yeah I do think the analogue grain is doing some heavy lifting on the aesthetic side of the Nishika/Nimslo images.
Ah, might have to try that. I've been getting adverts for "proper" versions of these (eg the Dispo Parallax) but no-one seems to sells them in a M4/3 mount (and I'm not keen on using adapters.)
To add to the other comments if you have the idea to use multiple camera to make the same effect but at a higher quality (and if you somehow sort how the synchronisation problem), then congrats ! You have invented bullet time, as demonstrated 27 years ago* in the Matrix.
Well, pedantically, demonstrated 148 years ago by Muybridge[0]
[0] "In 1878–1879, Muybridge made dozens of studies of foreshortenings of horses and athletes with five cameras capturing the same moment from different positions." via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_time
My constraint was a tongue-and-cheek "use as little technology as possible" (like what was available in 1999). I think nowaydays it's still more economical to do one pass of photogrammetry on your talent then do a mocap and actor replacement ?
I believe there have been camera specifically designed for this, where they have multiple horizontally spaced lenses that all take a picture at the same time, or literally just holding several cameras right next to each other and triggering them all at once
I have ADHD and normally excessive movement on my monitor disturbs me, but this didn't bring even a little discomfort. I didn't get addicted to them as well.
I read that they used artisanal code(!) - did they write a new image hashing algo, or use an established one?
If you pick up a digital stereo camera that creates .MPO files, I wrote a small app to create stereograms: https://github.com/EngineersNeedArt/Stereographer
Other than getting used to making the switch, I don't think there is any cognitive load. Just pairing normal lens focus with a different triangulation distance, which is something we quickly learn to do without thinking when using any glasses or lenses.
I find it a lot more calming than Wiggle-D. And paired with some simple head/eye tracking via laptop cams, it could be really versatile.
The animated plots are great. Be great to have a trackpad rotatable version. (And the need/benefit for head tracking gets really obvious when I move. The perception of reverse/non-sensical dynamics is strong.)
I have 120k photos in iCloud that I'm sure have duplicates (I exported my library to Google Photos years ago and exported it back to iCloud). The iOS duplicate detection stopped flagging duplicates for me to merge a while back. I gotta do something like this script...
We really need a short for "is it AI or not? has entered the discussion".
It's neat how the offset affects focal point. To my eye they look best when the main object is kept fairly stationary, and the further away you are the faster the wiggle speed should be.
The others are nice (but hectic) animations to me.
The first couple of examples were good but later examples were not so impressive. I think the later examples suffered from having too little of perspective change between frames and too much of subject movement -- which defeats the illusion of 3d from a "static" image.
Ideal one would have a left-to-right pan betweem the two clicks ..roughly matching the perspective shift between left eye and right eye ..while the subject stays static.
"In Web Browsers (Chrome, Edge, Firefox): Install browser extensions like GIF Scrubber on Chrome or GIF Blocker on Firefox, which add playback controls to any web page.
On iPhone/iPad: Go to Settings > Accessibility > Motion, and turn off Animated Images to pause all GIFs in Safari.
On Mac: Go to System Settings > Accessibility > Display, and toggle off Animated Images.
In PowerPoint: Press the 1 key on your keyboard during a presentation to pause the GIF."
https://share.google/aimode/X1Q5rp3z2tEbtDSPf
"Yes, but not natively just by using a standard <img> tag in web browsers. Because native APNGs play continuously like a traditional GIF, you need to use one of the following methods to pause them: [1, 2, 3, 4]
1. The Canvas Method (Best for Web Controls) To add play/pause functionality, you cannot use an <img> tag. Instead, you need to render the APNG onto an HTML <canvas> element and control it using a JavaScript library like apng-js. This provides precise, video-like control over the frames. [1, 2, 3, 4]
2. The Cover Method (Simplest Fallback) If you just want to freeze an APNG on its first frame, you can layer a static .png of the first frame directly over the APNG. When you uncover or hide the static image, the underlying APNG will be revealed and play as normal. [1]
3. Use CSS Animation Alternatives [1] If you are designing the animation yourself, an alternative is to build it as a single static image (a filmstrip of all frames side-by-side) and animate it using CSS background-position. This allows you to pause the image natively using the CSS animation-play-state property. [1, 2, 3]"
(Yes, I find silly and immature stuff amusing.)
It looks like a useless feature on the moment because what you want is the nice framing you are trying to capture, but it happens to become an incredible feature years later when a long press on your photo makes your then baby smile and laugh.
It's a best of both world implementation because unlike just capturing a video, you still get your high quality, stabilized and sharp picture of the picture you capture PLUS the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idteXQcGKlg
It's really a completely different effect to just stitching a few different photos together.
[1] https://fstoppers.com/film/worst-camera-ive-ever-loved-nishi...
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/wigglegrams/top/?screen_view_count=...
(super cool all around, thanks for sharing)
Basically it's multiple lenses next to each other, each capturing a small slice on the 35mm film. Every lens has it's own shutter, which is triggered at exactly the same time.
This wasn't too involved and quite cheap to implement with analog tech in the 80s/90s, but if you want to do the same thing with digital there's quite a bit more to consider. Here's a cool video of someone building a digital stereo camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aofxbH0elo
The hard part with digital boils down to: Cheap camera modules are hard to calibrate to the same parameters and sometimes impossible to set focus, so pictures look the same. And taking pictures takes quite a bit of processing power, so if you want to take 4 pictures at once it gets a bit tricky with just a cheap raspberry or similar.
This is one option, trading ease of use and low cost for lower picture quality and less light.
*ouch, I feel old
[0] "In 1878–1879, Muybridge made dozens of studies of foreshortenings of horses and athletes with five cameras capturing the same moment from different positions." via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_time
These days you can just capture video and make a 4d Gaussian splat
Inside of every old man, is a young man, going ”What the hell just happened?”.