This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

3dnatureguy,

I think you have a good point about the 3D commons logo. Two things have worried me about the current 3D commons logo. One is that it just doesn't jump out at you as a "3D" image-- when I first see it, it just strikes me as blurry, and only later do I get what it is. The other thing is that it doesn't look right with the glasses: I think this is because it's using Subtractive color instead of Additive color-- the spots where left and right image overlap should be LIGHTER, not darker. I've made some other versions and uploaded them to Wikipedia:3D Illustrations/3D Commons.

They vary from "actual working 3D images" that look okay through glasses, to "more symbolic representations of 3D images". We also could certainly just use the 3D glasses icon-- it gets the idea across really quickly. Anyone have any preferences? - Alecmconroy 19:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the logo issue (in the tagging box) is a side issue, I don't care so much what it looks like as long as it gets the point across that there is a good 3D image available to go with the good 2D image that the encyclopedia is displaying. For that reason I'd be happy with the 3D glasses below the commons logo. That has the advantage of not needing to seek license agreement for a modification of the commons logo but still conveys the point. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think this is a non-issue, but I take issue with 3dnatureguy trying to divert attention to it rather than answer the simple questions I have asked him. The icon is meant to depict anaglyps in general, not just his "compatible" anaglyphs. As far as I am concerened int he linked 2D/3D arrangement I don't care if the 3D version is "compatible" at all, in fact I would prefer it's 3D effect to be maximised above all other considerations. I am also not that attached to the logo and if being changed would make people happy then go ahead. -- Martyman- (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

(Alecmconroy continues):

I'm curious-- what sorts of misuse are you concerned about when you say "You know we haven't saved flat versions of our pictures because they are far more likely to be mis-used by publishers." Using without permission? Using for commercial purposes? or something else? Whatever it is, it sounds like you've had some bad experiences, and I'm sure sorry for that.

So, if you're still going to upload to commons, you should check out some of the software that's available to streamline the uploading process. If you have Windows, there's commonplace: http://tiredbrain.com/wikimedia/commonplace/ (be sure to install the .NET framework also-- there's a link on that page. It won't work otherwise)

I know one problem that's been talked about is that for some legal reason I don't understand, Wikimedia Commons isn't allowed to use the images if you say they are for "Non-commercial Use Only". So, if you haven't already, you have to explicitly tell us that you're images can be used for any purpose, not just non-commercial. However, you CAN require that whoever uses them, not matter what purpose they use them for, gives you full credit. If that's something you want, then whenever you upload more images, just pick "Creative Commons - Attribution" as the license-- that way, whoever uses it will have to give you credit. Which if you're a professional photographer (which judging from your work, you should be), that means that by uploading, you just bought yourself 8000+ examples of FREE PUBLICITY.  :). Just make sure, if you haven't already, that you tell someone (either us here on this page, or the computer when you upload them) that it is okay to use them for any purpose (so long as you are given credit). If you don't do that soon, the lawyers and lawyer-types are going to wind up deleting all the images you've uploaded on the grounds that Wikimedia Commons doesn't have the legal right to use them unless you give them that permission. And I really don't want that to happen.

It also looks like you're making 2D versions by airbrushing your images by hand in Photoshop? Man-- don't do that. That's WAY too much work. It kills me that you'd be putting that much time into reducing yourself to a 2D format, when there's such a shortage of skilled 3D photographers out there that are willing to take pics for Wikimedia. I'd say you're much better off spending that time uploading 3D pics to commons, and maybe making a wikibook that showcases some of your great work. And honestly, if you put that much time and effort into photoshopping one picture, you run the risk that the people that edit whichever article the pic is for might not like it for some reason, or might find other pics they like better.

Hey, don't let this policy thing stress ya. I guarantee you, in a few years Wikimedia Commons is going to have TONS of 3D images online-- you can be the guy to start the ball rolling now, or if not, with time, someone else will, and it'll be our loss for not having done more to help you start it. So, if there's anything I can do to help you with the uploading process, let me know. (I also wouldn't mind just getting to see the 3D images-- i've really enjoyed the ones i've seen so far.) If you wanted to somehow send them directly to me or something, I'd be happy to help do the uploading them to Commons.

Also, have you gotten to look at Wikibooks? It's almost exactly like Wikipedia, but some of the formatting policies aren't nearly as strict. For example, if you wanted to start an Anaglyph Photo Album to pick out some of the best anaglyphs out there, you could go to [1]. It's almost indistinguishable from Wikipedia, except of course for the name difference. You could include 3D images right in a Wikibook page like that. - Alecmconroy 19:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Content of the page Wikipedia:3D Illustrations/3D Commons (one edit on 18:03, 18 February 2006 by Alecmconroy, no summary) below:

Page deleted as maintenance. Cenarium ( talk) 16:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive analysis. I strongly believe in the core concept of Wikipedia. I want to help, not to impede progress. Can a few administrators form a short term panel to consider new forms of image display? I like Martyman's idea that thumbs ought to be good 2d, and link to bigger good 2D. I think the icon to 3D is a simple, direct way to make the choice of 3D. Once you get to a 3d friendly page there could be links to "3d commons", or two or three related images for more detail related to the exact object in the spot light. The bandwidth will only be used by those with a deep interest in seeing the object in maximum detail.

You asked for clarification on image mis-use by publishers. As a Photo-journalist I can take pictures under the conditions that would permit amateur photography. I can't sneak pictures where photos are prohibited. I can't commercially offer pictures to the publishing field, or the end users in themeatic albums. I can illustrate magazine articles, on line magazines, and demonstrate the new 3D technology. No re-selling of images to art book publishers. Museums want publicity but they don't want to lose potential hi-res photo revenues. It is a fine line. By refraining up 'til now from putting 2D images on line,I have always protected the museums. A lot of the images one sees on line, are in fact "laundered" copyrighted works. I have even found some of mine on Wikipedia. Mine are all self-made originals,I shoot sets of 3 or four for detail. A few other are conversions, converted to 3D from NASA or other P.D. govrnment sources. When converted, the copyright is mine not NASA's, strangely enough! I am grateful to Martyman, Dshwan, and the others and will try to post only original 2D images as the thumnail-main image from this point on. I am looking through hundreds of "back up" disks to find 2D originals. These will be used ,if found, to replace the "fixed" 3D. It would be easy to gather comments from the main body of Wiki users, who contact me through blogs and e-mail from around the world. I'll be at a large educator's conference in a few weeks. I'm sure they'll co-operate in making some input, including e-mail addresses for administrators to question them. Editors alone, are not the core of Wikipedia, the practical users, as well, should be allowed to express themselves if they choose to. People have always bought sets of encyclopeadias for the benifit of their children. Wikipedia should not be unfriendly to kids tastes,and preferences. Fact is, kids like 3D pictures. There is a new movement due to testing for amblyopia, that will get 3D glasses into the remote parts of the third world. I think those kids will especially love the 3D. Many years ago,(the'60s) I worked with UNESCO to develop 16mm camera systems to make sync sound films, in local dialects, for public health in African countries.

3dnatureguy 20:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You are realy starting to make me angry me now. I have no idea what tangent you are off arguing about now, are you now aguing that you don't want to use the 2D/3D method? You have completely failed to note any of the repeaated questions that have been posed to you, some of which are important and going to result in images being deleted even though we are trying to prevent this. Stop, think about what you are doing, and respond calmly and carefuly to the questions that have been asked. Your continued ignoring of a simple question of clarrifying a copyright claim is mind boggling. -- Martyman- (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Since we have general and clear consensus among just about all editors participating in development of this guideline that we've gotten to where we need to, I've moved it from proposed guideline to guideline... ++ Lar: t/ c 22:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This guideline is flawed. The icon for "commons 3D" is ugly as hell. I'm not alone in that opinion. I made a valid suggestion to revise it. Rather than take note of this, LAR moves to lock it in as originally proposed. This is high-handed, reactionary proceedure, that has little or no interest in making a workable policy. Martyman, reworked the offending Neanderthal image for another 5 minutes and declared it fixed.(so they are potentially fixable!) Why RUSH to certify a guideline that is incomplete or flawed. Contemplate the phrase: "Pride of authorship". That seems to drive a lot around Wikipedia. No 400 word article has to be revised 100 times in a year,except by obsessive contributors. I'm glad that the Wikipedia culture doesn't hold powers of life and death. This whole experience takes me back to college days, and "Lord of the Flies". Someone contact the foundation, and get my material released back to me. Purge the files of all traces of the offending images, and I'll go my own way. Sadder but wiser. 3dnatureguy 02:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You keep focusing on the minute details instead of the overall policy.

• The icon can be changed at any time to retroactively change all uses. This is not an impediment to this becoming a guideline.
• I did not rework your image for another 5 minutes. I started again from the 3D version and recreated a red channel which took me less than 5 minutes. I still do not feel it is up to scratch, but it served to demonstrate how bad your recreated 2D image is.
• You seemed to agree with the guideline a while ago, and now your sole objection seems to be an icon (which can be changed at any time).
• You still not have answered my question about image copyrights. This is getting pretty close to a blockable offence. I can not understand why you are going out of your way to avoiding being helpful.
• You do not have the right to demand your files back. They are released under a free license and are not your to control any more.-- Martyman- (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It is the percipitous move by LAR, to move the process to closure without allowing a final work-up of the rules. The "Commons 3D" icon IS not pretty...We have the glasses icon which can be combined as suggested, to clean it up. Why are you so soft on this "unsightliness" and so hard on my images? There are at least 5 people who had something good to say for 3D's value on the discussion pages. I know I can get dozens, maybe hundreds of letters from tenured professors in support of 3D images. I have explained, several times, that I am reluctant to release large, high quality flat images to "commons". 3d is a kind of "intellectual property protection" for the museums. I am not a freelance commercial photographer. I don't sell museum and zoo images to the book production trade...ever. Journalists have a different relationship with museums, auto-shows, zoos, and managed historical sites. We are allowed in most countries to photograph objects under the color of journalism, but not for posters, book covers, post cards, or commercial advertising. I have to keep the 2D image size below professional standards to release them to unrestricted use. I had chosen 900px as the upper limit. I have also, deliberately tried to upload images that are smaller than the 3D version, and only B-grade in terms of color correction, gama, and other optimization. I can only give you what I think will not be a resource for miss-use. You said the 900px size was acceptable. Please note that thousands of Wikipedia images are sheer garbage, but they have revelvancy to some degree. Wiki images are not very good overall and tend to be poorly documented, in terms of what,where, what period, and authorship of original art. My highschool text books, 40+ years ago were far better illustrated. This is about all that comes to mind on the copyright issue. The pre-fab boiler plate, doesn't consider images from Photo-journalists. All journalists have these rights. They may be shooting celebrities for tabloids, news,or images for on-line cultural commentary. It is a dynamic process and is partially co-mingled with the doctrines of "FAIR USE". Since I am also a writer contributor to Wikipedia, whatever I self-post on Wikipedia is protected. If I upload images to "Commons" I must also supply short, accurate, captions. "Commons" gets a lot of junk photos along with the occasional jem. I regret that I am not as free as someone with old PD images, government generated material, or their own drawings to sign them away without a thought. I don't actually expect the images to be released back to me, since 98% are in 3D only. Future postings would have to be restricted to 900px wide, less than repro-grade images. 3dnatureguy 04:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am somewhat disturbed at the tone of your latest comments. "Dynamics of a lynching"? "Precipitous" "thousands of images are sheer garbage"? Please, assume good faith here and remember to be civil. What, precisely is the issue in moving this guideline from proposed to finalised, though? It has been talked about for weeks. Everyone participating agrees with everything in it except you, and as near as I can tell your objections have all been addressed, multiple times, or are not relevant (the final form of the tagging box really isn't relevant to whether the guideline itself is "done" enough to move forward, and no one is saying that the style of the box logo can't be changed, heck I think it should be too). As for your releasing images or not, that's your choice, and no one is asking you to do things you don't have rights to. It is important to realise that this is about more than your images, it's about how 3D images in general should be treated. I guess I get a little frustrated as well that you're lashing out instead of answering specific questions. Finally, and this is a minor point, could you please call me Lar, that's the user ID I choose, rather than LAR? Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the icon which I state again is a non-issue as it can be easily changed at any time, I cannot figure out what you are responding to. I agree totaly with releasing this as a guideline, it in no way stops further changes being made to it.

In a discussion it is customary to read other poeples posts and respond to them, rather than just spouting random facts repeatedly that seem to bear no resemblence to the discussion at hand. No one is questioning your 900px images (it is the terrible artifacts that are unacceptable). I believe you have also misjudged what the GFDL means, anyone can use any of your images tagged as GFDL for anything they want anywhere they want. I do not understand what your problem with commons is. Please understand Commons is just a different server at wikimedia that serves images to the wikipedia, the copyrights etc are all the same. Please answer my simple question about the non-commercial claim on your early image uploads. -- Martyman- (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also please stop using the supposedly bad quality of existing wikipedia articles as justification for the bad quality of your uploads. Also in a discussion it is not nesicarry to start a new topic with every post, please try to follow wikipedia practice of replying indented the way evberyone else does. -- Martyman- (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

3dnatureguy,

Any images (3D, 2D, or anything else) that are going to be uploaded have to be in one of the acceptable licenses or otherwise be free. (see here). We're not allowed to use them otherwise. You can give that permission, or the lawyer-types are going to go and delete them all from the servers. I totally understand you hesitation, and I can't tell you what the right answer is. But, unfortunately, the requirement that any images the servers be under one of those licenses isn't something anyone has any control over. It's totally up to you, I won't bug ya about it again, just be aware of the issue so that if all your images get deleted outright, you'll realize it was just a some legal technicality thing, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the images being 3D.

Secondly. I don't know if it's been explained clearly to you, but having both 2D/3D is just a requirement for the very small teensy tiny part of Wikimedia that is Wikipedia. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikimedia Commons-- you can (and should) upload any images you want to commons-- even if they don't have a 2D version.

Of course, if you CAN find the 2D versions-- that'd be great. Only uploading 900px wide is fine-- that's plenty big enough. But I very much want you to know that if you can't get your hands on the 2D images-- that's fine too. Wikimedia needs 3Ds only as well.

Lastly, I do want to caution you that if you do decide to upload them, you won't be able to change your mind later. Also, if the museums in question actually absolutely refuse to let you use 2D versions, you probably shouldn't upload 3D version either, because of course, there is a "2D" version "hidden within" each 3D image. We don't have the ability to extract that 2D version yet, but our brain does, and soon, someone else will write the code to do the conversion digitally. I've been tempted myself to try to write a photoshop plugin to do the job. But sooner or later, someone WILL write this software, and when they do, there's nothing to stop Wikipedia from making 2D versions of every 3D version you've uploaded, so that they can all be included in the encyclopedia pages. So, just be aware that when you upload the 3D version, you're giving permission for someone to do that. I'm not saying this to dissaude you, quite the contrary, but it's just something you should be aware of, because once you release stuff, you can't, later, 'take it back'. When you release something, it's not that Wikimedia now "owns" your images and has the power to, later, "give them back". Rather, your waiving certain rights, and once waived, no one has the power to "give them back" to you, ya know?

I really hope you'll still upload all your images in spite of these concerns. Again, don't hesitate to contact me if I can help.

- Alecmconroy 13:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How about a list of sources where tinted plastic suitable for viewing 3-D pics can be obtained? Seems easy enough to get at least semi-transparent red plastic (chocolate biscuits sometimes come wrapped in it), but I can't find blue anywhere. - MPF 21:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are ever going to get the full effect with scrounged materials. Not to say you can't do it, but there will likely be too much bleed through of unwanted wavelengths causing annoying ghosting in the images. I have tried doing this with pieces of lighting "gel" and the results where less than stellar (and lighting gel is much more expensive than a set of glasses). There are many commercial providers of 3D glasses, with Red/Cyan I believe being the most widely accepted format these days. I am not sure if wikipedia should host lists of commercial providers or it could end up nasty if one or two where left off the list. Having said that, someone else may have had better luck with an improvised arrangement. -- Martyman- (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, tho' I suspect it'll have to be scrounged materials, I've never seen or heard of 3D glasses being sold around here. Another option - would it be feasible to print patches of the right colours on an acetate sheet with an inkjet printer? - MPF 01:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are several online sites that will send out cheap cardboard glasses for free if you send them a stamped self addressed envelope. I am not sure if the inkjet technique would work. Intuitively I would say no, for the filters to work properly they have to absorb light in all ranges except the desired one, I am not sure if that is properly possible by mixing the inks from an inkjet (that are normally meant to be used to reflect light). I suspect it would work a little, but again would be pretty unsatisfactory with bad ghosting appearing in the viewed images. -- Martyman- (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that a lot of the images deemed "compatible" ie; claimed to appear 2D as well as 3D do not appear that way people with colour blindness, especially where a green object is shown with a red 'ghosting' (red-green colourblindness), or a yellow object with cyan 'ghosting' (blue-yellow colourblindness), since the red borders appear to blend into the image of the object itself. For example, in this image, the car appears foggy around the edges, and the grass looks quite strange. smurrayinch ester^{( User), ( Talk)} 10:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that that is how the image appears to me as well, and I am not colour blind. ;) -- Martyman- (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You can what I mean with an online colour blindness simulator of the 1951 Mercury image. Because I have difficulty distinguishing between certain shades of blue/purple/green, it looks people, when shown in '3D' have too many arms. smurrayinch ester^{( User), ( Talk)} 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I would say many of these "compatible" images only look slightly better to me (with normal colour vision) than they do to colouyr blind people. Hence the reason for this guideline, which is essentially trying to find ways to use these 3D images without using them as primary illustrations in articles (As they are not acceptable 2D images). -- Martyman- (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As a colour blind person, I would agree with Smurrayinchester about the edges of the car and the grass. GusF 01 May 2006, 22:48 (UTC)

There are different prototypes for screens that can display 3D images. Isn't there a high risk that creating and maintaining Anaglyph images will create a collection of soon obsolete images?

I'd suggest that a standard image format could be replaced by a specialized image format in place, by Javascript. The impression could be that of selecting tabs from a TabbedPane. This would allow to add new image formats as standards icons for tabs, e.g. 3D models viewable through Java Applets or Browserplugins. This is also likely to be more popular than wearing 3D glasses. -- Fasten 14:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

{{BeginFormats|right|200px|Title}} {{PlainImage|image.png}} {{Anaglyph|anaglyph.png}} {{3D_Model|model. x3d}} {{EndFormats}}

The same could be used to prevent animations from playing unless somebody selects an animation tab (which could be shaped like the "|> Play" button). -- Fasten 14:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey 3dnature guy, good to see your are still here, it has been rather calm around the whole 3d thing lately. I got myself a pair of glasses recently. Since you now state explicitly that you waive all rights on your images it would be great if you could upload them directly to commons. You'll need another user account there, but it is worth the hassle. Commons is a central image repository for all wikipedias (there is one in practically any language), and I'd like to uses some 3d pictures in the german wikipedia. Images which are uploaded on commons are immediately usable on every wikipedia. If you upload to en.wikipedia.org they are only usable here. If you only care about the english version please still upload to commons, it makes absolutely no difference, the pics can still be used in articles on the english wikipedia. This is a win win thing with absolutely no drawbacks. You'd make your images available to the whole wikipedia community, nut just the english wikipedia. Please consider my plea! :-) Hope your ear infection is gone by now. All the best Dschwen 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, finally, I found a place, where could be help :). I am looking for a stereoscopic/anaglyphic picture for the germen hdtv article, because I want to write 3d films in hd, and I need a good picture example for it. But I just have found pictures, with an intersting "image" in "3D" but with a too small resolution, or vice versa. Because the resolution of hdtv are 1920*1080 (or 1280*720, but I would prefer a pic with the bigger res.), these would not be my first choice for the article. So I would really appreciate, if someone of you in here would give me a link to an existing image, which I overlooked, or create a new one with fullfilling both, an intersting image and the right resolution. And i read something about doing the 3D pic in an eye sparing way, so that the red green/red blu parts ar not so offensive. The Pic should be clearly recognizabel as an 3d pic, even as a thumb, otherwise the intention of the pic is futile. So, could anyone please create such a wonderfull image! And that leads me to another point. Please create a page on the Wikipedia:Requested pictures, where newbies like me can ask pros as you to make pictures the need for articles, or just to help them doing it their own. So more wiki users will be aware of your cool project and you perhaps gain more followers. If I would know how to makes those pics with my canon ixus 750 and the right pc pictures programm I would not be asking here :). thx in advance, greets, -- Andreas -horn- Hornig 11:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

hi, I found some 3D illustrations in the commons [2] and I noticed that there are no notice tags that the red cyan images does only realy work with the glasses, if thei are displayed correctly. but you all know, that colours are displayed differntly depending on the display, monitor and their settings. in the german wiki there is a tag for that issue I do not find in here, so this have to be enough for now de:Vorlage:Farbdarstellung.so my proposal is to create such a tag for 3D images. this image is not suitable for the main article, because there are a lot of more 2D images which do not have such a displaying probloem, BUT the tag sgould be implemented on the image description page. so, what do you think? greets, -- Andreas -horn- Hornig 19:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've got a bit of a problem with this guideline that I hope someone can address for me/with me. It seems that, for many, 3D anaglyphs are viewed as an 'extra', or a 'fun bonus' for people who own the correct glasses, but there are some areas where the anaglyph is a primary form of research.

Example: The Mars Exploration Rovers are equipped with stereoscopic cameras that allow for rapid compositing of three dimensional images. This isn't 'for fun', rather, millions of dollars were spent to achieve the ability to generate these images. At JPL labs, these images are viewed with 'active' 3D systems, where the glasses worn have rapidly switching polarized filters that alternately display one frame to one eye, and the other frame to the other eye. These create an unbelievable effect of depth that allows researchers to examine the landscape, and plan their missions, in a way never before possible.

The best way to render these 3D images to people without expensive 'active' systems, is the standard anaglyph. These anaglyphs are closer to the original source of the camera than the highly processed mono 'true color' imagery used in press releases.

There are cases where it would be appropriate to use this type of imagery in the articles, particularly when describing the technology, or giving people the ability to easily view these images in the way they were meant to be viewed.

Does anyone think that, in light of the fact that this technology is considered a primary research tool at JPL, the guideline should reflect a more lenient use of anaglyphs in these situations? Not a lot of people have glasses now, but with the continued use of 'serious' anaglyphs, more people may choose to get them. I probably wouldn't get 3D glasses just to view a gorilla skull, but I did choose to get them to view the most up-to-date imagery from the Mars explorations.

Thoughts? Phidauex 17:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Those types of images are still perfectly acceptable, but not in the articles; if you have however a flat version, with a link to the 3D version, that is allowed. smurrayinch ester^{( User), ( Talk)} 17:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It really isn't that we think anaglyphs are somehow "silly", "just for fun" or "not for serious research". I used to do psychophysics research that would have been impossible without binocular imaging-- I totally understand they're exceptionally important, and I desperately long for the day when the 3D displays are sitting on every desk. The exclusion has nothing to do with a lack of respect for the format-- it really just comes down to the fact that so few people right now have the technology to view the images. It would be like putting up an image in a format that is only supported by the Opera web browser-- the image may be very valuable, but for every person who can enjoy it, there are 100 who can't appreciate it and are merely frustrated by its inclusion.

I also should point out that there is a narrow exception to the policy that does allow for using the anaglyphs to illlustrate articles that talk about anagylph images and 3D imaging. Depending on what people here and at Mars Exploration Rover think, there might be room for one anaglyph image in an article talking about the rovers' 3D imagining capabilities for example. I don't know that I personally would support it, but it's within the realm of reasonability. The take home message is that we have to assume that absolutely NONE of our readers have the glasses-- because for better or for worse, practically none do have the glasses. So then the question is: knowing that our readers won't have the glasses, does this image still belong in the article? For the article Anaglyph image, the answer is 100% yes! a reader without the glasses would still want to see an anagylph image on that page. For the article Gorilla, the answer is 100% No! the reader would just like to see a gorilla skull, not a 3d one. For the Mars Rovers.... I don't _think_ a reader would want to see an anaglyph.. but on the other hand, maybe he would-- maybe it would drive home the message that the rovers are working in 3D. But whatever you do, just be sure to look at it from the point of view of the non-glasses-having public that make up 99.999% of our readers-- don't try to sacrifice their viewing experience merely to increase the pleasure of that tiny minority that has the glasses. -- Alecmconroy 17:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point... It's the same reader advocacy position I'm normally the one taking. I think that the Mars Exploration Rover article can justify one of the anaglyph images inline, since the image processing technology is a critical part of the project, and it may help drive home the idea that every image sent back by the rovers is fundamentally 3D. Currently, the 'example image' I'm showing above is in use at the Stereogram article, discussing stereograms in a more general sense.

Another issue, which isn't well addressed by this guideline, is stereo-pair stereograms, such as this example, again, in use in the Stereogram article as an example of the technology. They require two eyes to view, but do not require any special equipment. They are easier to view than Magic Eye type images, as well. They are typically used in the field of chemistry, where most of the popular molecular modeling programs can output, or even animate, a stereo pair to generate a 3D view of the molecule in question. Does this guideline cover the use of this type of 3D images as 'supporting' images in relevant articles? Phidauex 18:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the stereograms, to me, are a million times better than the anaglyphs for two reasons. 1) I can see them without glasses, and I personally have the knack of being able to view the stereograms, so every time I stumble across a stereogram, Yay For Me, I get to see 3D. But more importantly, 2) a user can ignore the second half of the image, and just treat the image as 2D. On the other hand, maybe it's kinda distracting and complicated and disrupts the feel of Wikipedia by, say, being annoying to all the people who can't see them, or by taking up extra space when just a 2D image would do.

Obviously, the Stereogram article is 100% fair game. As for other articles not about 3D imaging-- I'd say what would be REALLY ideal, if you're willing to put a bit more time into it, would be to photoshop out a 2D version (say, the left eye image of the sterogram) and show just THAT 2D version on the main article page, along with a link in the caption to the stereogram version. Unlike the anaglyphs and autostereograms, we can always make a 2D version from a stereogram, so the 2D/3D link option is really the ideal way to go-- that way we get to have our cake and eat it too. A nice flat non-confusing no-blurring-your-eyes image for the inline article, but a quick click and crosseyes later, I'm swinging to the sweet sounds of a stereogram.

And I think it would massively improve Wikipedia to have some of its images linked to sterogram versions-- especially in stuff like chemical models, mars rovers, and things like that. The stereograms are neat enough when it's something you're used to seeing-- a solid object like a skull for example. But they really are invaluable when you need to look at something your brain isn't used to seeing-- a molecule, a space station, an alien landspace, etc. I'm especially excited by the idea of chemistry stereograms-- I've had JUST enough chemistry to know that I can't visualize them at nearly as well when I don't have 3D.

The only downside to doing a 2D and a 3D version is that you have to construct and upload 2 files, not just 1. But, if you take the extra time to "do it right", then you can be positive your images will stay up forver and everyone will enjoy them, and no one will be annoyed at not being able to cross their eyes. -- Alecmconroy 19:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Reasons for Guideline section implies that all 3D images have artifacts and are accessable only to those with 3D goggles. This is not true. Stereograms are usable by anyone, with a few minor exceptions. They have no discolorations, unlike the nauseating anaglyphs. If there is a 2D image with a 3D counterpart, it would be simple to provide a link to the 3D image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.207.144 ( talk • contribs)

The policy was written with the anaglyphs in mind, although the same principle is applicable to stereograms. We should re-iterate though that the "ideal" option is to have a 2D image that LINKS to the 3D. This policy isn't made to discourage such things-- it's made to encourage that. 2D images that links to 3D images is a good thing, simple to do, and most welcome. -- Alecmconroy 18:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

they often come free in a magazine, like Sports Illustrated or National Geographic. The tone of this discussion is as if 3d glasses were expensive and rare —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.75.180.31 ( talk) 06:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

• But no one is going to go out and actively look for 3D glasses just so they can look at an image on Wikipedia. -- 71.101.10.115 23:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please add possibility of uploading VRML/X3D *.wrl/*.x3dv/*.x3d models to Wikipedia. This would be useful. Wikinger 16:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Superpika66 has been adding the Anaglyph image tag, {{3dglasses}}, to the tops of articles that contain images that should be seen thru red/blue glasses. Yet, according to this guideline, 3D images should not be used. What's going on here? Should I remove the images? Madman ( talk) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. one such article is Ivory carving

That's not quite true. They just should not be used exclusively to illustrate articles. Take it with a grain of salt. Anaglyphs can make sense and add additional value. -- Dschwen 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I will take it with a grain of salt. Can we get rid of the banner at the start of the article? I can't see its value. Madman ( talk) 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, yeah, I guess Superpika was just WP:BOLD, but I cannot see the value either. Or rather: the banner is overly obstrusive for the tiny information it transmits. -- Dschwen 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)