6 ms·

What always annoyed me is why they devised these to diverge your eyes and not cross them. Crossing your eyes is much more natural, and you can easily do it by

What always annoyed me is why they devised these to diverge your eyes and not cross them. Crossing your eyes is much more natural, and you can easily do it by looking at something close to your face. Diverging is much harder, at least for me and most other people I’ve talked to. So I can see these by crossing my eyes but everything is inverted. It comes out as a front layer with stuff cut out of it and behind.

ambrop7 8y ago
I agree, and diverging gets practically impossible if the image is farther away, like on a TV screen. There is no natural scenario when one's eyes would diverge, which is what would usually be necessary in such cases.
- WhiteSage 8y ago
  Looking at something behind the screen (if transparent) or reflected on the screen (if slightly reflective) should do the trick.
  - ambrop7 8y ago
    This only gets you there if the physical distance between the stereo images on the display is <= the distance between the eyes. If it is greater, you would need to look at something more than infinitely away / behind you (your eyes would have to diverge). In particular if the screen is already quite far away (e.g. a few meters), there's not much more far away you can focus anyway, since there's not much difference in angle between a few meters and infinity.
    - loco5niner 8y ago
      I have to admit I don't understand your argument, but in my experience: Stereograms are NOT meant to be enjoyed from across a room. It's REALLY hard to 'catch' a stereogram from far away, so why are you even trying? However, the "focusing on-or-through a transparent thing" that WhiteSage mentions works well at slightly further distances and can be used to help you figure this stuff out.
- loco5niner 8y ago
  >There is no natural scenario when one's eyes would diverge I like to look out a window at something distant, like a tree or car outside, then adjust my focus on the window pane itself (perhaps the little flecks of dust on it, or better yet one dot of paint on it). That is a very natural scenario, and at least for me. super easy. I've done it for decades though, so maybe it's just natural for me, lol. I can FEEL my eyes slightly squeezing to change shape (and thus change focus), and at this point it's simple muscle control, and it's fun.
nemetroid 8y ago
Your eyes shouldn't be diverging, just not converging (it's often called "parallel" viewing). It is more difficult to learn, and the offset between the images is more sensitive (since, as you say, actually diverging your eyes is near impossible). However, when you've mastered it, and when the offset (i.e. size) is correct, it's much easier to snap into than the cross-eyed viewing, and much easier to stay in focus while looking at different parts of the image.
jimmaswell 8y ago
Everything is blurry if I cross my eyes, but focusing far doesn't do that.
anyfoo 8y ago
They look much better if they are made to “diverge”, instead of cross, the eyes. Much “larger”, “deeper”... I think one way to describe it is that it’s like you are looking out of a window, instead of looking at an object in your hand, if that makes sense. As for which one is easier: For some reason, I have always been able to do the “uncrossing” on command, and it feels more natural and more relaxed to me. I sometimes do it to compare almost identical things that are next to each other. Crossing my eyes feels straining.

ambrop7 8y ago

I agree, and diverging gets practically impossible if the image is farther away, like on a TV screen. There is no natural scenario when one's eyes would diverge, which is what would usually be necessary in such cases.

WhiteSage 8y ago
Looking at something behind the screen (if transparent) or reflected on the screen (if slightly reflective) should do the trick.
- ambrop7 8y ago
  This only gets you there if the physical distance between the stereo images on the display is <= the distance between the eyes. If it is greater, you would need to look at something more than infinitely away / behind you (your eyes would have to diverge). In particular if the screen is already quite far away (e.g. a few meters), there's not much more far away you can focus anyway, since there's not much difference in angle between a few meters and infinity.
  - loco5niner 8y ago
    I have to admit I don't understand your argument, but in my experience: Stereograms are NOT meant to be enjoyed from across a room. It's REALLY hard to 'catch' a stereogram from far away, so why are you even trying? However, the "focusing on-or-through a transparent thing" that WhiteSage mentions works well at slightly further distances and can be used to help you figure this stuff out.
loco5niner 8y ago
>There is no natural scenario when one's eyes would diverge I like to look out a window at something distant, like a tree or car outside, then adjust my focus on the window pane itself (perhaps the little flecks of dust on it, or better yet one dot of paint on it). That is a very natural scenario, and at least for me. super easy. I've done it for decades though, so maybe it's just natural for me, lol. I can FEEL my eyes slightly squeezing to change shape (and thus change focus), and at this point it's simple muscle control, and it's fun.

nemetroid 8y ago

Your eyes shouldn't be diverging, just not converging (it's often called "parallel" viewing). It is more difficult to learn, and the offset between the images is more sensitive (since, as you say, actually diverging your eyes is near impossible). However, when you've mastered it, and when the offset (i.e. size) is correct, it's much easier to snap into than the cross-eyed viewing, and much easier to stay in focus while looking at different parts of the image.

jimmaswell 8y ago

Everything is blurry if I cross my eyes, but focusing far doesn't do that.

anyfoo 8y ago

They look much better if they are made to “diverge”, instead of cross, the eyes. Much “larger”, “deeper”... I think one way to describe it is that it’s like you are looking out of a window, instead of looking at an object in your hand, if that makes sense. As for which one is easier: For some reason, I have always been able to do the “uncrossing” on command, and it feels more natural and more relaxed to me. I sometimes do it to compare almost identical things that are next to each other. Crossing my eyes feels straining.