getcurrentevents - Get Current News about all

<<< Back to google
All about google

Related links

Out-googling Google
Firefox and Google combine to block malware
Caught in Google's cross-hairs: Mapping feature includes unwitting ...
Perhaps Google will buy Salesforce.com after all
In Fierce Competition, Google Finds Novel Ways to Feed Hiring Machine
Privacy international ranks Google last in privacy protection
Google buys Web security startup

Related sites

money.cnn.com

Popular tags

how to make money online
hosting
work at home
ebooks
elgoog
find
make easy money
advertise
online business
clickbank

49 Comments »

1. Why the heck are the last few comments like, random words/phrases? Pardon me if this is some joke on this site but I only stumbled on this so I'm probably never going to look at it again. :P

   Comment by Anonymous— June 13, 2008 #

2. Good riddance

   Comment by THOMAS— December 1, 2007 #

3. Field day

   Comment by CALLIE— December 1, 2007 #

4. All you can eat
   

   Comment by BRANDY— December 1, 2007 #

5. San fairy Ann

   Comment by AUBREY— December 1, 2007 #

6. Auld lang syne

   Comment by BLACKIE— December 1, 2007 #

7. The powers that be

   Comment by ADRIAN— November 30, 2007 #

8. Dirt bag
   

   Comment by PEPPER— November 30, 2007 #

9. Bloody-minded
   

   Comment by GRACIE— November 30, 2007 #

10. Share and share alike

    Comment by BLAINE— November 30, 2007 #

11. As fit as a fiddle

    Comment by SOPHIA— November 30, 2007 #

12. Shebang - The whole

    Comment by ASHLYN— November 29, 2007 #

13. Kiss me Hardy
    

    Comment by SHELBY— November 29, 2007 #

14. (The) unkindest cut of all
    

    Comment by PRECIOUS— November 29, 2007 #

15. Indian summer

    Comment by CONNER— November 29, 2007 #

16. Nest-egg
    

    Comment by ELIJAH— November 29, 2007 #

17. Put a damper on

    Comment by CADENCE— November 29, 2007 #

18. Gad zooks (or gadzooks)
    

    Comment by JORDAN— November 29, 2007 #

19. Gad zooks (or gadzooks)
    

    Comment by JORDAN— November 29, 2007 #

20. Put up your dukes

    Comment by KEAGAN— November 29, 2007 #

21. As keen as mustard
    

    Comment by LAUREN— November 29, 2007 #

22. Hairy eyeball
    

    Comment by STALLA— November 28, 2007 #

23. Laid out in lavender

    Comment by ISABEL— November 28, 2007 #

24. Extraordinary rendition

    Comment by ANGELINA— November 28, 2007 #

25. Et tu, Brute
    

    Comment by PHOEBE— November 28, 2007 #

26. Looked very cool until my head started hurting.
    
    Do you use a single image and slightly change the perspective in photoshop? Using two seperate images without such a jerk may produce better results.

    Comment by Lolcats— October 2, 2007 #

27. Works for me. It truly is a 3D effect -- the forest trail strikes me the most for its depth perception effect. I'm not surprised some people can't see it, just like some people can't make heads or tail of those crazy Magic Eye stereograms of yesteryear. But it's also extremely annoying ... my immediate thought was "earthquake!"

    Comment by Michael— September 28, 2007 #

28. why is everyone so hard on these. Its something innovative. I guess all of the detracters spend their time web surfing because they cant come up with any original ideas of their own

    Comment by macra— August 21, 2007 #

29. The internet seems to be having it's period, oh well... I think they're nice though. You might want to adjust the brightness a little to avoid the flickering effect a bit though (with some pictures some of the fotos seems to be a bit darker than the other).
    
    Also, I'm not able to follow some of the comments, could someone explain what quantum physics has to do with alternating photographs?

    Comment by Mark IJbema— July 16, 2007 #

30. Images like this do not ave any 3D effect on me at all. I see so slightly different pics flickering one after the other. It doesn't ever move from that to a 3d-ish effect. My guess is most people have this effect because with this trick both your eyes get the same information hence no stereoscopic 3d. If you want that effect you need to combine it with shutter glasses so that each perspective get's notice by 1 eye instead of both, else the brain will not combine the 2 images into 3d vision.
    
    But like this, it's just annoying blinkish images without 3D, sorry.

    Comment by David— July 15, 2007 #

31. the human eye processes a single image at a tenth of a second, anything faster than that is excessive, and works like the peripheral vision. The mona lisa is the most famous piece of art utilizing this concept. Looking at the eyes blurs the mouth accentuating the smile.
    This blur that the peripheral vision encompasses is deleted by holding the frame for a tenth of a second rather then 1/30 or 1/40 as seen in most motion photography, films and tvs.
    Also by swapin two images at the same time you have stereo at a single moment. True stereo, rather than the "same image" at different moments in time, which is not stereo. I put same image in quotations, since with time the image is different. ie. movements of hair in the wind.
    This is entire process is an excellent example of the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
    As for all the previous comments i understand how it could have look like that from your perspective.

    Comment by cera the cat— July 11, 2007 #

32. The two pictures are supposed to be side to side, and you're supposed to cross your eyes to merge them. This is just crap.

    Comment by Jon— July 11, 2007 #

33. ow! ow! ow! my head....
    
    thats a ready-made headache. thanks a lot.

    Comment by madcapgirl— July 2, 2007 #

34. nice, i think it could be useful in some way...

    Comment by bijy— July 1, 2007 #

35. Only the first one looks slightly...

    Comment by Mae— June 28, 2007 #

36. I like it good idea just needs to be refined.
    Guess you have two cameras that shoot the pictures at the same time - what would happen if you morph between the two pictures - presume a gif so just a sequence of morphing more frames between the two main ones. Try Smart Morph maybe just a thought ....

    Comment by 2 3D or Not 2 3D— June 26, 2007 #

37. earthquake!!

    Comment by bubble— June 26, 2007 #

38. This is how I see the world when I'm drunk. I don't understand why you think that this is interesting.

    Comment by Daisy— June 25, 2007 #

39. thank u..thats very beautiful and wonderfulll..

    Comment by parviz— June 25, 2007 #

40. Uh...how does this look more 3D than a video clip where the camera is moving? Oh, right, they don't, it's baloney.

    Comment by Robert— June 25, 2007 #

41. hahahah thats a very funny comment SmartPerson
    hehehehe true true!!

    Comment by busifer— June 22, 2007 #

42. They don't look 3D. They just look VERY annoying.

    Comment by SmartPerson— June 20, 2007 #

43. Brilliant, there are 3D glasses that do this

    Comment by Crimefaction— June 19, 2007 #

44. yes, but it's so annoying!!!

    Comment by Kaz— June 18, 2007 #

45. Alot of potential for creating a space in 2D - pity the camera looks like it buffered by high winds. Maybe an improvement would be a DISSOLVE rather than a fast cut!!!

    Comment by Nevso— June 18, 2007 #

46. Very cool!
    
    What is the technic?

    Comment by ady— June 18, 2007 #

47. Ahhh Myyyy epilepssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeee
    yagbdn dilfnuwkub gmn,serg

    Comment by Earl Grey— June 18, 2007 #

48. bulk of bullshit

    Comment by Wedgeman— June 17, 2007 #

49. this has to be burning man.

    Comment by samurai shy— June 16, 2007 #

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

 Image Verification

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>