Which one of you can see through the noise? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: paraboloid
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 03:45:46 pm
content: Hi thereI've made a little quiz for you guys. What do you see in this video?Hint1: There is more to see than just noise.Hint2: You don't need any tools to see the hidden content.After the first person has posted the solution I'll give you a follow-up link where I describe how I've made that video.Good luckEDIT: Here is described how I've made that video:https://befinitiv.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/how-to-make-a-stereogram-video/

author: nicknails
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 04:01:41 pm
content: Looks like a person waving and then holding a box-shaped object. Perhaps Dave waving and holding an oscilloscope?I won't give away anything about how I got there.

author: robrenz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 04:02:17 pm
content: A person waving their arms and then they are moving a box from one hand to the other.If that is not enough detail I will watch again and ad detail.

author: JJalling
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 07:58:44 pm
content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 08:18:16 pm
content: That is so cool! My eyes are a bit funny now though....

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 09:38:14 pm
content: Cool! Animated Magic Eye.Glad it was SFW. I was half expecting goatse or rickroll or something.Edit: Actually, I don't think 'noise' is an appropriate description here. It's more an essential of the underlying encoding scheme, while the signal, though low-res, has little noise.

author: denelec
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 09:46:34 pm
content: I don't see anything but noise.Bad eyes?Lack of imagination?Probably a bit of both...

author: robrenz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 10:00:35 pm
content: Quote from: denelec on December 05, 2014, 09:46:34 pmIt is a matter of learning to relax your eyes desire to focus on the screen surface and focus on a much farther away focal plane.Once you get it its very cool. It would be slightly easier on a still version. Google magic eye images.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 10:08:59 pm
content: looks like noise from a badly tuned analog TV set. [ runs away , arms flailing wildly in the air, all the way screaming : it probably has vacuum tubes as well ]

author: Mr Simpleton
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 10:17:17 pm
content: I see Poltergeist...

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 10:18:45 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on December 05, 2014, 10:08:59 pmI bet there were NOT any vacuum tubes involved in the calculations necessary to produce that.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 10:40:18 pm
content: Lacking stereoscopic vision all I see is noise.

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 10:53:58 pm
content: I remember someone once made a Quake rendering engine with THIS kind of output, a decade ago.That was a psychidelic thing to play.Ah.Google "Quake II AbSIRD"...

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 11:30:22 pm
content: Hmm... I can make out bits and pieces, but I can't keep my eyes properly focused long enough to get any real detail.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2014, 12:34:16 am
content: Figured as much, but the ridiculous MPEG compression and uneven framerate really throws me off. Can you re-encode that with, like, 10 friggin times higher bitrate?Tim

author: ManateeMafia
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2014, 01:06:54 am
content: Looks like someone eating a hamburger. But then again I could just be thinking about food.

author: AG6QR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2014, 07:00:06 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on December 05, 2014, 09:38:14 pmI always thought "SFW" meant "suitable for work", as in, if someone happens to pass by and look over your shoulder and sees it, they're not likely to be offended, and you won't get in trouble with your boss or the HR department for creating a hostile environment.But one could encode very hardcore inappropriate subject material in this way, and it would probably qualify as SFW, simply because it's so well disguised that nobody is going to casually see it know that it's offensive. They'll just wonder why you're wasting your time looking at static.Back to the video. There are two ways of encoding this kind of material: one way, you have to cross your eyes, and the other, you have to relax your eyes and let them diverge a bit. This is the latter type. I find the former easier to trick my eyes into interpreting. I can see a person moving arms around and manipulating a box, but I can't see much detail.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2014, 07:05:58 am
content: My understanding is that it stand for "Safe For Work" as far as HR is concerned. My employers might give me grief if I spent too much time in non related work videos, SFW or not.

author: paraboloid
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2014, 09:07:37 am
content: Wow, I'm quite impressed that so many people found out about this so quickly!As promised here is my write-up about how I created this video:https://befinitiv.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/how-to-make-a-stereogram-video/

author: Falcon69
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2014, 09:19:22 am
content: I tried for over a half hour staring at it earlier on youtube and just could not see it.Until now, when I changed it to 480p.I think resolution DOES make a difference here. At least, to me it did.Pretty cool.