3 ms·

Does this happen with other images? Do you wear glasses? I do, and moving that image around my field of view gives a mild 3D effect. I've always suspected that

Does this happen with other images? Do you wear glasses? I do, and moving that image around my field of view gives a mild 3D effect. I've always suspected that my poly carbonate lenses have strong chromatic aberration[0], with reds being separated outwards (blues inwards) when viewed towards the edge of my lenses.[1] When moving that image around, the red areas move more than the blues, so yeah, that's a fake 3D effect. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration [1] this is especially noticeable when I look at Microsoft's logo with the colored squares. I know that they are supposed to be equally spaced out, but they almost never look that way to me, especially when viewed in thumbnail form.

ungawatkt 5y ago
I think you're on to something, while I can still "force" a 3D effect on the image without my glasses by unfocusing a bit and moving the screen, it's much stronger with glasses on. Edit: nearsighted, I don't remember the glasses prescription but contacts are -3.25
LeoPanthera 5y ago
I do wear glasses! And I think you're onto something. I just switched to my backup pair and the effect is much less pronounced. So it must be something to do with my glasses.
- bananabiscuit 5y ago
  You are probably seeing the effects of chromatic aberration. Bluer colors get refracted more strongly than redder color. The thing that makes it look 3d is that this effect is more pronounced the further from the center of the lens you are looking. So in your left eye for example the yellow boxes are closer to the center of the lens than in your right eye, the chromatic aberration will shift those yellow boxes more in your right eye relative to how the blue background gets shifted, and that results in what your brain perceived as parallax which makes you think the image is 3D.
rahimnathwani 5y ago
> I do, and moving that image around my field of view gives a mild 3D effect. Same for me. I tried with two different pairs of glasses (both from Zenni). Without glasses there's no such effect.
aimor 5y ago
This has annoyed me for years with my polycarbonate (or some other plastic) lenses. I do a lot of work plotting data, and people like to use vibrant colors with pure red, green, blue. Well I turn my head slightly and the lines shift, or they split into two different colored lines. With a prescription around -6 I'm not sure what the best alternative is, I was looking into glass lenses again.
- foobarian 5y ago
  Recently I inquired about glass lenses for that reason after a long time with plastic ones, and was surprised to learn they are mostly phased out due to safety concerns.
- alar44 5y ago
  You for sure don't want glass lenses. Your biggest issue isn't poly, it's your lens thickness. Best way to get the thinnest lenses possible is to use round frames. Perfect circles would be ideal, rectanglish in any way is going to thicken them significantly. Mention those issues to your eye doctor too, they'll know how to reduce abberation with different lens designs if that's something that bothers you.
  - frosted-flakes 5y ago
    It's not the lens thickness, it's the optical density (Abbe number). Different lens materials have different Abbe numbers. (I first learned of this here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19315650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19315650)
    - alar44 5y ago
      I know, I work in the optical industry. Abbe value is one part of it, but thickness is the multiplier. For most prescriptions, you'll never notice. But with a high negative, you have thicker lenses. If you use something with a lower index, they get even thicker. So what you do is use high index material to thin it as much as possible, then use round frames to prevent the lenses from flaring on the sides.
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
I think this is it. My glasses have a noticeable aberration when I look at the edges of the lenses. This image gives me a slight parallax when I look around with my glasses on, but if I take them off, it doesn't happen at all.
saltcured 5y ago
After complaining to an optometrist about this, they suggested the Trivex lens material as having less chromatic aberration. I've been pretty happy with those glasses, though I am reluctant to declare the material a silver bullet. I'm at the age where presbyopia changes each year and so it is not feasible to really compare the affect of the material alone.

ungawatkt 5y ago

I think you're on to something, while I can still "force" a 3D effect on the image without my glasses by unfocusing a bit and moving the screen, it's much stronger with glasses on. Edit: nearsighted, I don't remember the glasses prescription but contacts are -3.25

LeoPanthera 5y ago

I do wear glasses! And I think you're onto something. I just switched to my backup pair and the effect is much less pronounced. So it must be something to do with my glasses.

bananabiscuit 5y ago
You are probably seeing the effects of chromatic aberration. Bluer colors get refracted more strongly than redder color. The thing that makes it look 3d is that this effect is more pronounced the further from the center of the lens you are looking. So in your left eye for example the yellow boxes are closer to the center of the lens than in your right eye, the chromatic aberration will shift those yellow boxes more in your right eye relative to how the blue background gets shifted, and that results in what your brain perceived as parallax which makes you think the image is 3D.

rahimnathwani 5y ago

> I do, and moving that image around my field of view gives a mild 3D effect. Same for me. I tried with two different pairs of glasses (both from Zenni). Without glasses there's no such effect.

aimor 5y ago

This has annoyed me for years with my polycarbonate (or some other plastic) lenses. I do a lot of work plotting data, and people like to use vibrant colors with pure red, green, blue. Well I turn my head slightly and the lines shift, or they split into two different colored lines. With a prescription around -6 I'm not sure what the best alternative is, I was looking into glass lenses again.

foobarian 5y ago
Recently I inquired about glass lenses for that reason after a long time with plastic ones, and was surprised to learn they are mostly phased out due to safety concerns.
alar44 5y ago
You for sure don't want glass lenses. Your biggest issue isn't poly, it's your lens thickness. Best way to get the thinnest lenses possible is to use round frames. Perfect circles would be ideal, rectanglish in any way is going to thicken them significantly. Mention those issues to your eye doctor too, they'll know how to reduce abberation with different lens designs if that's something that bothers you.
- frosted-flakes 5y ago
  It's not the lens thickness, it's the optical density (Abbe number). Different lens materials have different Abbe numbers. (I first learned of this here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19315650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19315650)
  - alar44 5y ago
    I know, I work in the optical industry. Abbe value is one part of it, but thickness is the multiplier. For most prescriptions, you'll never notice. But with a high negative, you have thicker lenses. If you use something with a lower index, they get even thicker. So what you do is use high index material to thin it as much as possible, then use round frames to prevent the lenses from flaring on the sides.

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago

I think this is it. My glasses have a noticeable aberration when I look at the edges of the lenses. This image gives me a slight parallax when I look around with my glasses on, but if I take them off, it doesn't happen at all.

saltcured 5y ago

After complaining to an optometrist about this, they suggested the Trivex lens material as having less chromatic aberration. I've been pretty happy with those glasses, though I am reluctant to declare the material a silver bullet. I'm at the age where presbyopia changes each year and so it is not feasible to really compare the affect of the material alone.