There are many ways of making wigglegrams. The first method is to capture multiple horizontally displaced shots together at once. There were cameras designed for this in the 80s that had 4 lenses, with the widest about eye width apart; the intent was for them to be printed as lenticular 3d images. The second is to have a single shot and then synthetically create additional perspective, such as by using a depth map.<p>I have done both of these. For the first one[0], I used a Nimslo 3D and for the second one[1] I drew with pastels on paper, and then drew a depth map in Photoshop and used it to displace pixels horizontally for the novel perspectives.<p>The OP's "accidental" wigglegrams are mostly of the first variety but, the horizontal allignment is not locked in and the shots were taken not at the exact same time. That's why the parallax effect isn't as strong and they don't look as good as the first 3 images that came from Nimso/Nishika.<p>What is intresting is that both of these two methods are relevant in the age of modern iphone. Iphones capture multiple exposures together in live photos, so moving the iphone laterally when shooting creates a "boomerang" wigglegram. Iphones also capture depth map from the LiDAR sensor when shooting in portrait mode.<p>Between increased hardware capability and genai for synthesizing additional perspectives, we could be living in a golden age of wigglegrams. Alas, they are out of style.<p>[0] <a href="https://fooladder.com/post/115435676962/at-the-concert" rel="nofollow">https://fooladder.com/post/115435676962/at-the-concert</a>
[1] <a href="https://fooladder.com/post/61216111704/starry-venice" rel="nofollow">https://fooladder.com/post/61216111704/starry-venice</a>
Found a guy on instagram who builds a custom stereoscopic camera with 4 identical pi cams spaced evenly (about 1 inch (2.54cm)) away from each other on a line. It creates wigglegrams
<a href="https://k4mera.world/" rel="nofollow">https://k4mera.world/</a>
I’ll shill a library I wrote to make wigglegrams & stereograms in matplotlib - I think pseudo-3D visualization is super underrated as a technique to understand data!
mpl_stereo: <a href="https://github.com/scottshambaugh/mpl_stereo" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/scottshambaugh/mpl_stereo</a>
That's cool. They work well. (I prefer the stereograms, but you need extra equipment to view those. I keep a stereo lens pair near my laptop though.)<p>If you pick up a digital stereo camera that creates .MPO files, I wrote a small app to create stereograms: <a href="https://github.com/EngineersNeedArt/Stereographer" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/EngineersNeedArt/Stereographer</a>
i find it so easy to "switch" to 3D with pairs of images like this, it strikes me as strange that cheap stereo-3D isn't a standard interface element.<p>Other than getting used to making the switch, I don't think there is any cognitive load. Just pairing normal lens focus with a different triangulation distance, which is something we quickly learn to do without thinking when using any glasses or lenses.<p>I find it a lot more calming than Wiggle-D. And paired with some simple head/eye tracking via laptop cams, it could be really versatile.<p>The animated plots are great. Be great to have a trackpad rotatable version. (And the need/benefit for head tracking gets really obvious when I move. The perception of reverse/non-sensical dynamics is strong.)
The first ones shown are quite neat and pleasant. The "accidental" ones pretty quickly gave me motion sickness as I scrolled through them. They also weren't nearly as interesting, though I couldn't look at them for very long.
The intentional ones tend to move along a horizontal plane, and in fairly uniform (or specifically-graded) steps.<p>The unintentional ones deviate on both bases, creating a more chaotic result.<p>("Creating chaos" being an interesting notion itself....)
Yeah, I'm not prone to motion sickness, but that wigglegram with the iPad gave it to me instantly.
Interestingly, the pixelization/noise effect is applied clientside, so if you open an image in a new tab, you can see the original. Originals look much better, in my opinion.
That was fun, and the script on github looks hand-written which is refreshing after having been reading AI-written code for months.<p>I have 120k photos in iCloud that I'm sure have duplicates (I exported my library to Google Photos years ago and exported it back to iCloud). The iOS duplicate detection stopped flagging duplicates for me to merge a while back. I gotta do something like this script...
If you're really wanting to do perceptual hash based deduplication, use multiple, heterogeneous hash algorithms (phash, dct hash, mean hash, ...) as it is likely that a given hash algo will happily lossily match with very very different images--but if all hashes match, you're much less likely to have false positives.<p>I wrote up what I do here: <a href="https://photostructure.com/guide/what-do-you-mean-by-deduplicate/" rel="nofollow">https://photostructure.com/guide/what-do-you-mean-by-dedupli...</a>
Ah yes, artisanal code!
> and the script on github looks hand-written which is refreshing after having been reading AI-written code for months.<p>We really need a short for "is it AI or not? has entered the discussion".
Whew... the continuous motion started triggering migraine symptoms until I closed the window.<p>But it does have a nice 3d effect. For me, the cycle speed seems excessive. I believe someone suggested tying wiggle effect to mouse movement?
If I'm not mistaken this blog is from a person I had the pleasure of working with in undergrad for a course project. They were brilliant then and are still now.
Somehow the extra motion seems to reduce the illusion of depth, it just seems like a disjointed animation to me.
I agree. The first three from reddit work really well for me. I assume it's because of the fixed horizontal movement, and the fact that they are captured at the same moment from different angles. :)<p>The others are nice (but hectic) animations to me.
The ones from Reddit also have more frames, I'm guessing they were taken on on a Nishika 3-D camera.
Yeah, the first three work for me too. (just realized my original comment was kind of ambiguous)
The ones they generated weren't taken specifically to be wigglegrams so they don't work as well as intentional ones. The biggest problem is number of photos and the consistency of the direction of movement between each image and the next as well as consistent step sizes. They also tend to work better with horizontal movement compared to vertical probably due to it matching our eye layout but that's a guess.
Intresting, I have a weak eye so rely less on stereo; these pop as much more 3d then a photo.
Does anyone know what is the technique they use in some of the documentaries where they use really old photos, but they make them look like this wiggle gram? I know it's not AI because the photos can be decades old, but they still do some stuff which that makes them almost see like 3D.
On my Pixel phone I always leave enable the "Top Shot" setting, it saves a short low resolution video clip in the XMP/RDF metadata of the JPEG file. It saves motions that are not visible on a still image adding valuable information. iPhones and Samsungs have similar settings.
Live Photos are what iPhones call it and I love them. I made an app to turn them into GIFs, I often make wigglegram GIFs out of them. "Giffer" on the App Store[0] if any readers are interested.<p>[0] <a href="https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/giffer/id6767937960">https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/giffer/id6767937960</a>
I had it on, but it makes each photo 10-12 MB though. Now its on Auto, which isn't ideal either.
This is what happens when you let the frontend team name things
Have to bring back split depth GIFs a decade later too?<p>Just works with depth hinting no actual stereo information.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48630210">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48630210</a>
Better link: <a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/SplitDepthGIFS/top/?sort=top&t=all" rel="nofollow">https://old.reddit.com/r/SplitDepthGIFS/top/?sort=top&t=all</a><p>(The original defaulted to “past 24 hours” for me, which didn’t show anything.)
I've noticed that GIFS with several frames in them tend to be quite large files. I like that these use dithering, which can reduce the file size. Ideally it would be not larger than 2-3 lightweight photos juxtaposed together, and less than 300KB. I also wish there was a pause button on them because sometimes reading articles on the web with them persistent can get tedious. I suppose disabling images can mediate that, or copying the text to another document.<p>"In Web Browsers (Chrome, Edge, Firefox): Install browser extensions like GIF Scrubber on Chrome or GIF Blocker on Firefox, which add playback controls to any web page.<p>On iPhone/iPad: Go to Settings > Accessibility > Motion, and turn off Animated Images to pause all GIFs in Safari.<p>On Mac: Go to System Settings > Accessibility > Display, and toggle off Animated Images.<p>In PowerPoint: Press the 1 key on your keyboard during a presentation to pause the GIF."
The Nintendo 3DS has two cameras on the back, so you can turn its 3D photos into wigglegrams. I made a web app that does this automatically, it has a few demos where you can mess with offset or timing: <a href="https://wiggle3ds.moonlemon.nexus/" rel="nofollow">https://wiggle3ds.moonlemon.nexus/</a><p>It's neat how the offset affects focal point. To my eye they look best when the main object is kept fairly stationary, and the further away you are the faster the wiggle speed should be.
Could these use some frame interpolation and smoothing to make them less jerky? Or would that make them just a video clip then?<p>The first couple of examples were good but later examples were not so impressive. I think the later examples suffered from having too little of perspective change between frames and too much of subject movement -- which defeats the illusion of 3d from a "static" image.<p>Ideal one would have a left-to-right pan betweem the two clicks ..roughly matching the perspective shift between left eye and right eye ..while the subject stays static.
I also noticed on the wikipedia gallery theres an example that repeats frames for smoothness! 1-2-3-4-3-2 makes it naturally smooth if you have more than two frames.
Yes, the author notes as much: ‘many of them come out as less "stereoscopic" and more "kinescopic" - like little unintentional movies.’
Could these things be turned interactive? Like a parallax effect when you move your mouse?
I made these in 2007 <a href="https://trondal.com/oygardstjonn" rel="nofollow">https://trondal.com/oygardstjonn</a>
The website is really nicely designed, and the dithering on the images is quite beautiful.
I have often wondered how the effect was created where e.g. in a documentary you see historic black and white photographs slowly 'camera panning' or zooming somewhat from left to right with a perspective shift. Is that also created as a wigglegram on the basis of multiple photographs I wonder, at times where taking a single photograph was an involved process?
I will just take a video recording instead of several images in quick succession.
This would make a nice add-on for Digikam, which already does perceptual image hashing.<p>I read that they used artisanal code(!) - did they write a new image hashing algo, or use an established one?
I often take a very short video, under 5s, rather than a picture. Even 1-2 seconds captures dimension and sound in a different way than a still picture. I’ve had people say it’s strange but they work well for me.
Live photos on iOS are exactly that, by default, each time you take a picture, it embeds the 3 seconds before the shot and the 3 seconds after the shot as video with sound.<p>It looks like a useless feature on the moment because what you want is the nice framing you are trying to capture, but it happens to become an incredible feature years later when a long press on your photo makes your then baby smile and laugh.<p>It's a best of both world implementation because unlike just capturing a video, you still get your high quality, stabilized and sharp picture of the picture you capture PLUS the video.
Not that strange I guess, given how iOS does that automatically for all taken pictures.
The same effect is used in a Dan Deacon video.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idteXQcGKlg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idteXQcGKlg</a>
I enjoy photos taken while people are speaking with the camera fixed. You can get some really unintentionally funny flips between facial expressions. Kinda like wigglegrams, I suppose.<p>(Yes, I find silly and immature stuff amusing.)
Maybe show them side by side for crosseyed stereo viewing.
Doubles as a motion sickness test :)
Includes repo for finding pictures taken from slightly different perspectives in a photo archive, and making wigglegrams from them.
If you have an iPhone, it does this automatically (provided you don't disable Live Photos). Quite fun to review all the random stereoscopy you have inadvertently created by having an unsteady grip on the camera...
There's something really beautiful about this. The moments of your life can dance.
Good idea, but the discovered image sequences are very different from the deliberately created examples at the top of the page.
Images at the top of the page are created using a Nimslo/Nishika camera [1] it's a 35mm 4 lens camera that takes all 4 shots at once so you get that satisfying rotating depth look at them.<p>It's really a completely different effect to just stitching a few different photos together.<p>[1] <a href="https://fstoppers.com/film/worst-camera-ive-ever-loved-nishika-n8000-173235" rel="nofollow">https://fstoppers.com/film/worst-camera-ive-ever-loved-nishi...</a>
I had a look at the top submissions on the /r/wigglegrams subreddit [0]. It seems that some (including some of those featured in the article) are the more prototypical stereoscopic wigglegram, whereas others are more a stylistic effect.<p>[0]: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/wigglegrams/top/?screen_view_count=1&t=all" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/wigglegrams/top/?screen_view_count=...</a>
This title no verb
That link should have an epilepsy warning.
If you're using an iPhone, couldn't you automate this by extracting "Live images" which are kind of "mini-videos" around the photo you took?
How is the first one done? It seems like the cartons would fall faster than you could manually capture 2-3 images?<p>(super cool all around, thanks for sharing)
It's tech from the 80s. Look up the Nishika N8000 and Nimslo 3D.<p>Basically it's multiple lenses next to each other, each capturing a small slice on the 35mm film. Every lens has it's own shutter, which is triggered at exactly the same time.<p>This wasn't too involved and quite cheap to implement with analog tech in the 80s/90s, but if you want to do the same thing with digital there's quite a bit more to consider. Here's a cool video of someone building a digital stereo camera: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aofxbH0elo" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aofxbH0elo</a><p>The hard part with digital boils down to: Cheap camera modules are hard to calibrate to the same parameters and sometimes impossible to set focus, so pictures look the same. And taking pictures takes quite a bit of processing power, so if you want to take 4 pictures at once it gets a bit tricky with just a cheap raspberry or similar.
<a href="https://github.com/jyjblrd/wigglegramLens" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/jyjblrd/wigglegramLens</a><p>This is one option, trading ease of use and low cost for lower picture quality and less light.
To add to the other comments if you have the idea to use multiple camera to make the same effect but at a higher quality (and if you somehow sort how the synchronisation problem), then congrats ! You have invented bullet time, as demonstrated 27 years ago* in the Matrix.<p>*ouch, I feel old
Well, pedantically, demonstrated 148 years ago by Muybridge[0]<p>[0] "In 1878–1879, Muybridge made dozens of studies of foreshortenings of horses and athletes with five cameras capturing the same moment from different positions." via <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_time" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_time</a>
>if you somehow sort how the synchronisation problem<p>These days you can just capture video and make a 4d Gaussian splat
<i>> ouch, I feel old</i><p>Inside of every old man, is a young man, going <i>”What the hell just happened?”</i>.
I believe there have been camera specifically designed for this, where they have multiple horizontally spaced lenses that all take a picture at the same time, or literally just holding several cameras right next to each other and triggering them all at once
I assume more than a single camera or a moving camera with a very high shutter speed with fixed focus.
really cool. I imagine this will land as a filter on insta soon :D
I think the title is missing a verb ...
Awesome
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
I imagine those to be like crack cocaine for people with ADHD, but I just feel like I'm being zapped watching them.
I have ADHD and normally excessive movement on my monitor disturbs me, but this didn't bring even a little discomfort. I didn't get addicted to them as well.
I am diagnosed with ADHD and the amount of jumping movement in these is torturous.
It did nothing for me