I prefer wigglegrams. If you're looking for an example - Wikipedia page has one from 1927[1]!<p>[1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiggle_stereoscopy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiggle_stereoscopy</a>
This is very common in structural biology papers, where you need to make figure of complex 3D arrangements of atoms, but the figures must be printed in 2D. Typically using molecular modeling software, you find your view of choice. Then you rotate +- 0.5° and render two images, and put those side by side as a stereo pair figure.<p>It takes quite a bit of practice to see them well:<p><a href="https://spdbv.unil.ch/TheMolecularLevel/0Help/StereoView.html" rel="nofollow">https://spdbv.unil.ch/TheMolecularLevel/0Help/StereoView.htm...</a>
Since the advent of models like Depth Anything, you can now convert 2D images into this effect using them plus a bit of creative processing. Here's a non-technical overview that plugs some software and talks about the underlying models: <a href="https://www.owl3d.com/blog/2d-to-stereoscopic-3d-with-ai-depth-map-from-a-single-image" rel="nofollow">https://www.owl3d.com/blog/2d-to-stereoscopic-3d-with-ai-dep...</a><p>Bonus, I also found this real-time 3D-ifier for your screen: <a href="https://github.com/zjkhurry/stereopsis-anything">https://github.com/zjkhurry/stereopsis-anything</a>
I had to, hopefully you don't mind moultano!<p>Same content, but all lined up and rendered the whole article in cross-view.<p>You can now read the article and see the pictures while in cross-view.<p><a href="https://jasonjmcghee.github.io/you-should-make-cross-views-3d/" rel="nofollow">https://jasonjmcghee.github.io/you-should-make-cross-views-3...</a>
If you are able to cross two images for the 3D effect you can also do it to spot differences like a savant in “spot the differences” games.
Give it a try: <a href="https://spotthedifference.games/" rel="nofollow">https://spotthedifference.games/</a><p>You’re welcome.
When they wrote "your screen can display 3D photos", I thought it would be a hardware hack and not something that depends on a human physiology hack.<p>Something like stereoscopic GIFs come to mind, e.g. <a href="https://tenor.com/fr-CA/view/dain-stereoscopic-daingifs-3d-monster-gif-9119977" rel="nofollow">https://tenor.com/fr-CA/view/dain-stereoscopic-daingifs-3d-m...</a><p>In other words, taking the two images and swapping them quickly creates the illusion of depth.<p>Edit:<p>Looking into it, there's a word for it. Wiggle stereoscopy: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiggle_stereoscopy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiggle_stereoscopy</a>
A great source for stereo pairs is NOAA's aerial imagery data, consisting of various snapshots along an airplane's trajectory. For example here is a stereo pair of Desecheo Island:<p><a href="https://cdn.coastalscience.noaa.gov/datasets/aerialphotodb/usvi/images/797.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://cdn.coastalscience.noaa.gov/datasets/aerialphotodb/u...</a><p><a href="https://cdn.coastalscience.noaa.gov/datasets/aerialphotodb/usvi/images/796.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://cdn.coastalscience.noaa.gov/datasets/aerialphotodb/u...</a><p>EDIT it can be tedious to discover such pairs. If only there were a tool...
I can generally see the Magic Eye pictures very well.. these are way harder.<p>The tiny thumbnails at the bottom of the page work, but the larger images I can't cross my eyes enough.<p>I think it depends greatly on getting the screen/image size just the right size and also getting the viewing distance right. On large monitors it seems harder to see.
I love this effect. I had a book of Magic Eye pictures as a kid, which was a similar effect.<p>I'm not sure how practical the "crossing your eyes to get 3D" thing actually is, it makes my eyes water after a minute or so, but it's still sort of cool to see my cheapy monitor doing 3D without any special glasses.
I've done this with my SLR. Moving the camera different amounts can give a more pronounced effect, however it can be more difficult to get the image to converge.<p>I had a lot of fun with doing this 20 years ago. Sadly, my visual acuity has become significantly different between my eyes (even w/ correction) and the enjoyment of 3D displays has really diminished as as result.<p>Just musing because I'm working and busy:<p>I wonder how difficult it would be to do video. (Obviously you'd have to shoot two videos in parallel versus just moving the camera and shooting again.)<p>Converting existing 3D videos to a cross-eyed viewing format would probably be the easiest way to experiment with it. I wonder if anybody has done that. I've never looked at 3D movie formats before. I always assumed it was two interleaved streams.
To simplify capture, I've picked up a couple of digital stereo cameras (Fujifilm FinePix REAL 3D is a good one). The image quality is so-so and they're fairly affordable still on eBay (maybe $200 or so).<p>Last summer on a road trip to Alaska, it was almost my exclusive camera for the trip. When I got back I wrote an app to take the MPO files it contains and turn them into a printable parallel-view image. The side-by-side images are intended to be printed and used in an old-fashioned stereoscope.<p><a href="https://github.com/EngineersNeedArt/Stereographer">https://github.com/EngineersNeedArt/Stereographer</a>
The video game Magic Carpet had a couple of 3D modes, anaglyph 3d requiring blue/red classes, and stereogram mode [1]. The latter was not really usable, but it was a cool trick, expecially for the time ('94).<p>[1] <a href="https://youtu.be/iZT-S2F191I?si=8k9jniqA98wgq0Hu&t=1090" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/iZT-S2F191I?si=8k9jniqA98wgq0Hu&t=1090</a>
I found these all very easy to see on my phone screen. By the end of the article I was already able to instantly "go 3d" without thinking "go cross eyed" or use tricks like looking at my nose.<p>The problem I think most people will have is screen size. If the screen is too big then going cross eyed will be harder and might cause strain. Straight eyed can be easier, but I still think there's a limit on screen size. Magic eyes when printed are about the right size for people's heads so just work.<p>The second problem is the pictures look half as big as soon as you "go 3d". So although it's very cool and I buy the author's point that some pictures <i>need</i> the depth to make sense, there's always something lost from the full size picture. On my phone it made it like looking at a postage stamp!<p>Still I might try it myself given how easy it sounds. I imagine even a slight bit of wind would make some subjects impossible, though!
I’ve been able to view these type of pictures forever. But I’ll credit the article with today being the first time I’ve actually taken them myself, put them side by side in my notes app, and been pretty impressed with how simple it was to get a neat effect.
Often underappreciated detail when it comes to stereoscopic 3D is that the image produced is not actually fully 3D still.<p>Even with just a single eye, it is possible to see depth: this would be via monocular depth cues, such as depth of field.<p>If you ever wondered why 3D visuals, no matter how technically advanced, never quite felt right, this is likely the culprit. When your eyes adapt to the stereo 3D cues, the monocular cues are lost and vice versa. There are some VR technologies that do hope to achieve both at the same time using eye (and iris?) tracking, but I haven't been following the topic for a while. It's essentially a quest for a lightfield display.
I’d love to look at these pictures but have never succeeded. In particular, I find crossing my eyes to be a rather painful ( as in, it physically hurts ) experience so stop immediately if I try.
Don't do this too much.<p>Your eyes have to focus. For things close enough they can tell from the required small angle of cross-eyed movement, how to focus.<p>These pictures (and stereograms) disconnect the focus and angle of your eyes.
Do it enough and you loose the ability to focus quickly. I found it out playing with steregrams on a 286 pc a long long time ago.<p>YMMV but I lost the ability to quickly re-focus object that you dont already know the size of; and it's a bitch.
My favourite related trick is to use cross viewing to solve find-the-difference puzzles.<p>Set up so the two images (with slight differences) are next to each other, cross your eyes, and look for 'shimmering' spots - these are the differences between the images.<p>It makes differences very easy to spot, which is pretty cool!
I love that this comes up every so often on hacker news. I used love Magic Eye as a kid, and have been taking stereo photos on and off ever since. Experimenting with how to take them (moving camera, from a plane, etc), and how to view them (cross view, and putting them into Meta Quest).<p>Thanks for sharing!
Those who fail to cross eye/parallel eye these images can try looking at these through a (DIY) binocular (empty pipes/used kitchen roll should work the same).<p>It will only work with parallel eye images though (at the end of this article).
<p><pre><code> most stereograms are designed to look correct when you cross your eyes
</code></pre>
This is how I look at stereograms (looking nearer than the page), but at least some of the images on this page seem like they're designed for the other way around (looking in the distance, beyond the page).<p>This one looks weird when I look at it cross eyed, but fine when I look at the other way.<p><a href="https://moultano.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/17405320419888595852203168102922.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://moultano.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/17...</a>
january 1983 issue of Creative Computing had an article on stereo vision, and I build the stereoscope in it, and wrote basic for my IBM PC to do this. Awesome!<p><a href="https://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v9n1/162_Stereo_graphics_making_i.php" rel="nofollow">https://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v9n1/162_Stereo_grap...</a>