Talk:Autostereogram

message: We are trying to come to an agreement on various ways to classify and name different kinds of autostereograms.  Please add your ideas in this section. Fred Hsu 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different types of autostereograms 

message: I am replacing this image with a color random dot stereogram showing the same shark used in other illustrations in this article.  I don't want to lose the original image.  So I moved it here temporarily. Fred Hsu 04:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is possible to see towers of blocks 2, 3, and 4 levels high - I haven't managed 5 yet. Is the general mechanism for this mentioned in the article? -Tim Rawlinson 12:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporarily removed content 

message: After reviewing the article, I've determined it to meet the qualifications for Good Article status. It's a nice piece of work, and its clear that the authors have gone to great lengths to aquire books for references. I can tell its come a long way with the FA/N and the peer review, and things are well within GA levels.
I don't have many specific comments for further improvement at the moment, however, continued work in image sizing and positioning for good viewing in all browsers would be recommended. I'm viewing in an 8x6 Firefox window, default skin, and while things look good for the most part, there is a little overlapping in the Simple Wallpaper section. Nothing bad, but its worth continued tweaking, and testing in various window sizes and browsers.
If you desire more clarification on my reasoning for promotion, just leave me a message on my talk page. Good work, everyone! Phidauex 15:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a [[WP:GA|Good Article]] 

message: Is there a way to create a Autostereogram on your computer? Or turn a image you have into a Autostereogram?  Caleb09 00:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating Autosterograms 

message: I have amblyopia and I have always been able to see these types of images. Am I some kind of medical weirdo? 
Jcsavestheday (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regain stereo vision 

message: The caption for :Image:Stereogram_Tut_Clean.png says "The illusion of a plane lying behind the wall is created by the brain." I was expecting to see an aeroplane rather than a plane (mathematics). --Henrygb 08:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plane

message: I merged this into the Animated section for the time being.  I can't verify this at the moment as I do not have access to CRT monitors. But I'll verify this later today.  09:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidental Stereogram 

message: Well done to all in getting this to FA standard and on the main page. I still think it's one of the best articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Skittle 11:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Well Done

message: I know there are computer programs to change images into autostereograms, but is there a program to take an autostereogram, analyze the image and the repetition within, and output what it's supposed to show a person (so that a person, for instance, with an eye problem, could see the image)?
Also, was my question stated clear enough so that you could understand it? (some people have trouble understanding the way I ask questions)
* Very clear.  I have thought about writing such program myself.  It is not as easy as producing one.  The brain is truly an incredible organ.  But yes, it can be done, and perhaps someone has already done that... Fred Hsu 14:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autostereogram reversing program? 

message: The introductory sentence currently reads: "An autostereogram is a single-image stereogram (SIS), designed to trick human eyes and brains into seeing a three-dimensional (3D) scene in a two-dimensional image." As the "How they work" section explains, stereopsis occurs in the brain not in the eye. The eyes are not "tricked" as they just gather information. -AED 15:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory sentence

message: boooh!
:It's a schooner! --Bobak 17:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article doesn't make the slightest sense 

message: *Well written article on a cool subject.  Great pick for the front page.  Props to everyone involved in writing this.  Wickethewok 18:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very cool

message: *Keep trying with the reduced-size images, as they require less eye movement than the full-sized images. I can only see the full-size images cross-eyed. Gazpacho 22:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Viewing tips for this article

message: "In order to perceive 3D shapes in these autostereograms, the brain must decouple focusing operations of the eyes from convergence."
This quotation from the introduction of the page sounds as though it is grammatically incorrect, but I'm not sure if some of the terms are technical terms that I just don't understand.
Please take a look at it.
Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikerobe007 (talk • contribs) .
:It looks fine to me. Here's how I parse it: (In order to perceive 3D shapes (in these autostereograms),) the brain must decouple ((focusing operations) of the eyes) from (convergence). —Keenan Pepper 02:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Keenan, in a few days, I'll try to make sense of all new stuff added into this article, and do a first round of copyediting.  I'll ask you to proofread one more time when I am done, if you don't mind.   Hopefully, wiki's built-in diff will be good enough to allow you to quickly look at new changes.  I've noticed that when a paragraph is split into two, the diffing process gets really confused. Fred Hsu 04:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, no problem. —Keenan Pepper 18:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good sentence structure? 

message: The current definition, while not incorrect, could be improved upon by mentioning that the differing images have to be presented to differing eyes. While this is mentioned elsewhere in the article, readers parsing the article looking for a brief overview may fail to realise the importantance of binocularity upon reading this definition. 
Fillup 00:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update definition of Stereopsis? 

message: I didn't find any information in the article about if autostereograms "work" for people who may be afflicted with one of the various types of color blindness.  Does anyone have any good information to add on this topic?  I think it would be appropriate to document in the article if so.  Thanks. --V3rt1g0 03:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  Even if you end up not finding anything with enough officialness for the main article, I appreciate your answer here all the same.  Thank you Fred Hsu. --V3rt1g0 16:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Color blindness]] 

message: According to official policy, links to forums are not allowed, even if the topic of the forum is on the topic of the article itself.  I know from my own experience that the yahoo forum on autostereogram is excellent.  Members of this forum mail brilliant home-made autostereograms to other members of the group on a daily basis.  If you are interested in autostereogram, you definitely need to sign up.  But people keep adding this link to the article, and it keeps getting removed.  I think it is time we create a section on this talk page to explain why such links are not officially allowed. Fred Hsu 00:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online discussion group on SIS 

message: Someone keeps adding two books in German to the Reference section.  I removed them twice, but it keeps getting added back in badly formatted fashion (latest attempt by User:U7born.  I don't know German, but the sentence appears to be German.  I am moving this reference to the talk page for now (see below).  I just bought these books from Amazon/Used as it appears to be out of print.  If the book contains information not already discussed in the article, I'll add properly formatted reference back to the article.  There are many good autostereogram books out there, including a few by friends of mine.  They are not listed here because wikipedia is not a book store or a catalog all books.  Besides, the book seems to be written in German as well. Fred Hsu 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliophgraphy 

message: I removed the newly added section.  The phrases need to be reworked.  And inline citation added. Fred Hsu 03:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporarily removed Notable References 

message: So, I was about to buy the Bennett and Hacker article for $31 dollar, when I thought, "may be I'll first check if the guy published a book or two". What do you know, there is Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience at Amazon.com. I figure I would get a better picture of their positions by reading a complete book for $40. I was about to hit the one-click button, when I made the mistake of checking out reader comments first. It is clear from both positive comments and negative comments that the authors are simply playing language tricks that philosophers have long been employing. Check out reader comments. 
Philosophy has no place in an article on autostereogram and visual perception. The authors seem to claim that brains are just cells. Brains cannot "perceive". It's the "mind" which does the perceiving. Or the "person" who does the perceiving. This is simply complete BS. Our mind is nothing more than the signals running across synaptic connections. Robert, you should check out Pinker's How The Mind Works if you really want to understand how the mind works. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Bennett and Hacker and the Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience 

message: Please remove it.  I don't know how, thanks.  It's extra space and unncessary and redundant and goes against MOS.  If you have counter arguments, please notify me on my talk page, thanks.  I don't know how, thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra Space After ==Random-dot== 

message: Some of the so-called autostereograms are nothing but horizontal repetitions of small two-image stereograms!
How can you call this an autostereogram?
The objects that appear three-dimensional are formed by overlapping two completely separate little images
(e.g. dophins etc). How can that possibly count as a different category of stereogram from a regular
two-image stereogram?
Look, you can cover up everything else in that image except two adjacent dolphins, and yet still fuse the dolphins to see the image. Are these two dolphins an autostereogram? If not, why is the whole thing an
autostereogram?
A true autostereogram should be defined as an image that produces a 3D illusion from overlapping data.
For instance, a 200 pixel 3D object is encoded, in say, a 300 pixel wide image, requiring a 10 pixel
offset between the eyes, would be an example of an autostereogram.
The "auto" means that the shift between the eyes is smaller than the object that is perceived, so in
effect a single 2D image encodes the two separate channels for the two eyes, which are decoded
by the brain when suitably offset. 
If there are two images, then there is no such encoding going on. A separate image is going into each eye.
Hence, no shift encoding is taking place, and there is no autostereogram.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.122.66 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I disagree about the "auto" part  for some of these 

message: A significant proportion of the populace are simply unable to view these 3D posters because of physical inability to do so, through no fault of their own. I'm surprised the article doesn't even hint at that. A quick google search doesn't turn up the name of the condition or even a decent reference but I know that I've seen reference to this before - hopefully someone else can complete this article - those that "just don't get it" shouldn't feel bad, as there are people who legitimately will never be able to see these no matter what they do.198.161.2.241 (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See my discussion under "Statistics on how many people can see them" above. I've a nagging feeling that it's discussed in one of Richard Gregory's books, but my active involvement with the subject ended a decade or so ago and time has wrought its usual blurring effect :( Kay Dekker (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: search for "amblyopia" in the article itself. Perhaps there should be a separate section dedicated to this. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think amblyopia has much to do with this. I don't have amblyopia, and I've never been able to see anything but a headache with these things. 72.83.179.77 (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical conditions do not permit viewing

message: Moved code added by User:Deepmath from main article to talk page. Please keep in mind that this article is a Featured Article. While your program is a valuable piece of information (I am a programmer myself), adding it in raw code form to the article does not help most readers. Perhaps you should host your software and demonstration somewhere online and add a link to it on the External Links section. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example code in [[PHP]] 

message: The link (in the external links section) to Quake in 3D appears to reference a non-existent url.
69.109.230.40 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Quake in 3D appears to be broken 

message: I don't know if anyone has written about this but I was doing the thumb thing on the animated "dot" shark and I found the dots
where following my thumb, I just wanted to point that out  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.242.202 (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a thing i found out 

message: I created an animated version of the shark stereogram from the article (showing the image twice, with the second frame offset by the pattern length) that shows the 3D effect without requiring the wall-eye view. Might be a helpful addition to those who can't do the wall-eyed view and are wondering how those autostereograms look like. -- Grumbel (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed Grumbel's "wiggle stereogram" in the article. Thanks for making it. Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated Shark Stereogram 

message: THERE'S NOTHING THERE
NOT A SHARK OR ANYTHING!!!
is this a joke or something?
are people pretending to see this?
please explain. 82.46.111.137 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is this? 

message: The use of images in this article is superb. One of the best use of them in Wikipedia, really. Great work by those who've spent time editing here. Good job guys. 98.162.244.83 (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Great work

message: I realized reading this article that I perceive autostereogram depth cues backwards, causing me to interpret the images falling into the page instead of popping out (something like a hollowface).  Although I can see the images, I often have difficulty identifying what they depict.  With some effort I have managed to get fleeting glimpses of the intended depth cues and it has improved my recognizing subjects noticeably.  I was wondering if anyone knows more about this phenomenon or has experienced this themselves. Does it warrant mention in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.65.210.29 (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably using the wrong vergence, or viewing technique, for the image: wall-eyed (parallel) and cross-eyed. Hyacinth (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewing depth cues backwards 

message: There appear to be quite a few items here that should be brought to current FA standards so that a Featured article review can be avoided.  External links needs to be pruned, the Terminology section is listy, most of the text is unsourced, and there are numerous MOS issues (WP:MOSNUM, faulty use of WP:ITALICS, poor image placement, and unformatted citations).  I hope someone is able to deal with these issues.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA review needed 

message: I would compare seeing the images within stereograms with any other skill or ability. Unless one isn't able to do it for some reason, one is potentially able to do it. Saying that some people never will be able to do it for no reason, doesn't make sense. However, making the claim that an individual will never be able to practice or achieve a skill or ability for a reason, may make sense.
There is a difference between someone who doesn't know how to practice a skill or ability (unable) and someone who is incapable of achieving or learning a practice or skill. Lumping the two into the same category and claiming that it is offensive to distinguish the two is, at the least, counterproductive.
This distinction does not become offensive just because a person was forced to try a practice or skill or ability, though it may bother that person to be told it is easy to achieve. Most children are forced to learn how to read, and then forced to read. This doesn't make it offensive to say that most children are capable of reading. It certainly doesn't make it untrue.
As such I am removing the neutrality tag and the dubious tag. Hyacinth (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unable and incapable

message: Some things that could be done to improve this article:
*The term SIS needs to be explained. How can it be applied to "wallpaper autostereograms"? Overall the terms need to be clarified and cited. I believe contradictions exist between the Wikipedia articles covering stereograms and stereoscopy regarding terms.
*Per the section directly above (though the anonymous user doesn't say it), some of the references to "the brain" should be removed. It took out one instance from the introduction: "the brain must overcome" and changed it to "one must overcome" to imply that it is an act of will on the viewers part rather than an act of will on the part of the brain as a separate agent from the viewer.
*The section "How they work" would more accurately be titled "Types". The information on how they work should be separated.
*Similarly, the section "Mechanisms for viewing" would more accurately be titled "How they work". The information from what is currently titled "How they work" could be put here.
*Overall the organization of the article could improve. The introduction is somewhat unclear (for example it describes a "wallpaper stereogram" as formed from a repeating pattern and a random-dot stereogram as having "every pixel...computed from a pattern strip and a depth map", which may not be clear that they are both formed from repeating patterns. Ideally the article would discuss principles of vision behind (the construction and) viewing of stereograms as early as possible, then types of stereograms. While Wikipedia is not a how to, some people react very negatively to the initial difficulty viewing often encountered viewing autostereograms. If I remember correctly the early Magic Eye books gave little useful information, primarily advising one to stare at the images a long time. We, obviously, can provide more information than that without being a how to.
Hyacinth (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: I pointed out issues a year ago; Mark Arsten expressed similar concerns a few months ago.  This article is high on this list, and the issues have not been resolved.  Please resolve all tags within the next few weeks: this article needs to be submitted to WP:FAR.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR needed 

message: Is focusing this way for a prolonged period bad for your health? Or is it good eye exercise? 
I want to second this very important question with an emphasis on the eye's physiological and brain's neurological healths points of view. From my personal experience stairing into these kind of images have two opposing effects. The first is perceived while one looks into them which is a relaxation of the eyes (in addition to some surprise and excitement of course) however the second opposing effect is more likely to be on the neurological side of HVS (Human Visual System) and is therefore more serious. I hope there is some medical research on the effects of wall-eyed perception on HVS's normal operations. Because it is expected that as the coordination between eye muscles, eye nervers, and image sysnthesis part of HVS is altered in some tricky way to fake HVS to create an illusive 3D image, it might result in corrupted feedback coordination issues in this highly sensitive part of the brain. This topic is important because any potential negative effects on the HVS, may have fatal (irreversible) results on human normal viewing and reading cababilities or evern worse it can trigger less known types of neural anomalities whose side effects are rarely encountred and therefore less known within the medical circles... I repeat: this is an important issue and must be seriously considered.
117.199.2.88 (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not for original research. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health 

message: Not mentioned in article. 109.157.79.50 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "rastergram" redirect here? 

message: The introduction mentions two different types of autostereograms, but ALL images with a type identifier are wall-eyed. Where are the cross-eyed images? Medinoc (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See :Commons:Category:Cross-eyed vergence autostereograms, specifically :File:Mariposas autoestereoscópicas.JPG. Hyacinth (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are all images wall-eyed? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Autostereogram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5536894
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225125208/http://www.ski.org/CWTyler_lab/CWTyler/TylerPDFs/TylerClarkeAutosterSPIE1979.pdf to http://www.ski.org/CWTyler_lab/CWTyler/TylerPDFs/TylerClarkeAutosterSPIE1979.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following statements in the article seem to contradict each other:
"An image designed for wall-eyed viewing if viewed correctly will appear to pop out of the background, while if viewed cross-eyed it will instead appear as a cut-out behind the background and may be difficult to bring entirely into focus."
"This type of visualization is known as wall-eyed viewing, [...]. Because the two eyeballs converge on a plane farther away, the perceived location of the imaginary object is behind the autostereogram."
In my view, the second statement is correct, while in the first it should be the other way around.
--KaiKemmann (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perceived location in front or in the background? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Autostereogram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326085326/http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/~petz/images/anim-2.gif to http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/rds-ex.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As the title says, there is 95% of images in this article are wall eyed. Why only 1 image cross eyed, is there a problem with those?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santropedro (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  too many WALL EYED only 1 CROSS EYED