yeah this one isn't popping out so good.
also it's so wide I have to strain my eyes so hard to get it synched up

Amono said:
yeah this one isn't popping out so good.
also it's so wide I have to strain my eyes so hard to get it synched up

I think it would work better on phone because it's so wide. But I have no problems viewing it on my monitor, I got used to crossing eyes because I do it a lot when editing.
And yeah, sorry again, I could make depth better, but it would look like shit with my current skills, so I figured it'd be better to just leave it as is and never touch pictures with texture like this ever again.

Sycamorph said:
I think it would work better on phone because it's so wide. But I have no problems viewing it on my monitor, I got used to crossing eyes because I do it a lot when editing.
And yeah, sorry again, I could make depth better, but it would look like shit with my current skills, so I figured it'd be better to just leave it as is and never touch pictures with texture like this ever again.

Yeah I can imagine that this texture would be hard as balls. Still good on ya for trying :)

I don't know why but something didn't work well with that stereoscopic upconverting. Just because this isn't stereoscopic. There are same pictures in bots sides. Completly flat. I tried it with a 3D monitor with glasses.

Fabulous said:
I don't know why but something didn't work well with that stereoscopic upconverting. Just because this isn't stereoscopic. There are same pictures in bots sides. Completly flat. I tried it with a 3D monitor with glasses.

I guess it doesn't work that well as anaglyph, are you sure you swapped sides when converting? You can also just create 2 layers in Photoshop or something like that, add both sides to each layer, and then switch layers to see the difference.
P.S. I've spent around 20 hours on this, so at least say that it's bad, but don't say that I haven't done anything.

Fabulous said:
I don't know why but something didn't work well with that stereoscopic upconverting. Just because this isn't stereoscopic. There are same pictures in bots sides. Completly flat. I tried it with a 3D monitor with glasses.

there is a difference between them, but it's pretty small for how close the character is to the viewer. the stereoscopic effect is there, just barely.
and it's pretty inconsistent.
for example, his dick is still (except one side of the knot), so everything at the depth of the dick should be still as well, everything closer than the dick should move in one direction, and everything further should move in the other.
for some reason parts like his right arm have their own "middle point" located at the wrist, which kinda fucks the whole effect up.

Shingen said:
*stuff*

That's pretty much it :p
There's bit inconsistansy with stuff and now there's too little depth, though still pretty nice.

Also when doing cross eyes, wider it is more difficult it becomes to majority of people. It's much nicer when looking trough screen though.

Shingen said:
...

Middle point? What do you mean exactly?
Also there is the file that shows all layers, I would really appreciate if you could tell me my mistakes, you seem like someone who knows more than me. Thanks!
http://www.megafileupload.com/6lrx/layers_done.psd

Sycamorph said:
Middle point? What do you mean exactly? (...)

well, maybe that wasn't the best word to use. i meant the objects, that are NOT being moved in the process of creating the second half of a stereoscopic image.

you may know that, but the file you provided kinda shows that at least something went wrong, so just to be sure, when you're creating that second half, you have to:
1. split the base image into layers of parts at roughly the same distance from the viewer.
2. decide which of them you don't want to move (unless you want to move everything, but that would be kinda dumb) (this is what i previously called the middle point).
3. move all layers of objects, that are closer to the viewer than the chosen layer, to one side, and the ones that are further, to the other. you move them more, the further they are from the chosen layer.
4. fill the gaps.

now, i know that grouping objects up by distance, especially when the character is diagonally is not the easiest task, but i would argue that the tip of his head and the right wrist are not in the same distance from the viewer as his penis, anus and left thigh, as your file would suggest ;)

Shingen said:
...

Oh, I see, I moved everything but the layer named "0", choosing something in the middle would be easier. And yeah, the head is farther away from the viewer than his butt, I don't know what I was thinking. I'll try to avoid making the same mistakes again. Thank you!

Sycamorph said:
Oh, I see, I moved everything but the layer named "0", choosing something in the middle would be easier.

don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that it has to be in the middle (either resolution- or depth-wise), or that it even makes things easier. i just called it so because people seem to usually choose something around the middle of the main object they're looking at. this makes it seem as if we're moving our head, rotating around the object that we're looking at, instead of just looking at it with the other eye.
so for a regular stereogram, probably the most natural way of making those would be choosing the background as the immovable layer, and moving everything else in one direction, since when we switch from looking with one eye to the other, it's the farthest objects that move the least, but it may not be as important.
on the other hand, i think it looks definitely better if we choose the middle of the main object if we're about to make those wiggle_stereograms

I can't cross my eyes