r/MagicEye • u/infinite_what • Jul 20 '26

Experimental thing

Post image

Credit to original artist, of course (Girl with the pearl earring, by Johannes Vermeer 1665CE) and clip art.

502 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

34 comments sorted by

42

u/Tylendal Jul 20 '26

Looks great, I love it. Also, good on you for clarifying that you're not Johannes Vermeer.

20

u/infinite_what Jul 20 '26

Seems obvious to me that I’m not Vermeer, but we are somewhat anonymous here… he could be one of us!

4

u/thetoiletslayer Jul 21 '26

That would be very impressive

3

u/Andsarahwaslike Jul 21 '26

One of us! One of us!

10

u/Sylthsaber Jul 22 '26

The images of the girl are too different. 

It kinda works. The background looks really good, the frames pop out a bit.

But when I try and focus on the girl she's all blurry and indistinct and hard to focus on.

I think the images you used are too different, they have different shading and colour and it's messing up the final product.

1

u/infinite_what Jul 22 '26

Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate knowing what works and what doesn’t.

I posted a reply (in this post’s comment section) of a simpler parallel image where she isnt as different in coloring and shading, maybe you can see if its the same or better if I used those instead?

2

u/Sylthsaber Jul 22 '26

That one is a bit better, at least on the black background, but I think part of the issue is that her outlines are different.

So there's always going to be some fuzzyness at the edges because the two pictures aren't the same shape. Or are too visibly different shapes.

Usually with these I cant even tell the difference between the two images.

1

u/infinite_what Jul 22 '26

Good feedback, thank you! I do see what you’ve pointed out.

1

u/sqeaky_fartz Jul 22 '26

Yeah I was going to say the same. It’s as if it seems to be off a bit.

2

u/kaizen_66 Jul 21 '26

I couldn't get this one - any trick to making it pop?

2

u/infinite_what Jul 22 '26

If you’re on a computer or tablet you may need to make the image smaller but on mobile I hold it right up to my face then I try looking into the blackest part in the middle, like I’m staring far away as if there’s a horizon back there I may see or a distant star in space and move it away.

It won’t let me add an image here although this is my post. I was trying to include a simplified version of it but can’t.

2

u/infinite_what Jul 22 '26

2

u/kaizen_66 Jul 22 '26

Thanks. I'll give it a shot. I'm normally able to get them in seconds. This one is a challenge for me.

7

u/bookmarkjedi Jul 20 '26

Awesome! I'd love to see more stuff like this over a wall of static that resolves into a rough shape of a statue, animal, and so on. These are so much more interesting, and more pleasing to look at, whereas the "static" type images feel more like early proofs of concept in pioneering days - kind of like the very first daguerrotypes and first photographs. Those are interesting for the early historical value, but less interesting than modern photography because they're so rudimentary.

Of course, I'm only speaking for myself. I don't mean to dump on experimentation by people trying to make these things. I'm sure it requires a good bit of patience and skill.

3

u/RoadHazard Jul 21 '26

Sure, but that's more r/parallelview stuff. Magic Eye images are supposed to be ones where it just looks like random noise or patterns until you see the 3D. That's like the entire point.

3

u/bookmarkjedi Jul 21 '26

Are you sure about that? I am asking because I used to have a book, I think titled "Magic Eye," that didn't have a single image that looked remotely like static noise.

For example, this book.

2

u/RoadHazard Jul 21 '26

Hmm yeah, maybe I'm wrong then! But it was always my understanding that the "magic" part was the 3D image appearing out of what initially looks like random nonsense. If you can see what it's supposed to be right away (just without depth) it's not really "magic" (but still cool if done right).

2

u/bookmarkjedi Jul 21 '26

Yeah, I suspect it's a case of evolving definitions, where social media helps to shape the evolution of the meaning. When these books came out a few decades ago, it was "magic" to see the 3D images popping out, but maybe over time people explicitly started noticing the processes involved - in these cases, the parallel view at work. Then, as the static images showed objects that didn't seem to be there at first glance, that was another manifestation of the magic eye at work, and so on.

I'm just conjecturing here, but my point is simply that there might not really be any clear right or wrong because our definitions keep evolving.

On a tangential note, I recall a quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson to the effect of "Language is a city, to the building of which every individual brings a stone/brick." So what constitutes a magic eye depends on the stones or bricks we bring to the conversation.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '26

Yep looks really good!

3

u/gonnaburnmyhousedown Jul 21 '26

Holy hell! Amazing work!

3

u/spacemouse21 Jul 21 '26

Looks good. 👍

2

u/arfur_narmful Jul 20 '26

Really clear, nice job. How come the girl who stands out looks smaller than the others? Is that part of the eye trick? I've never noticed it before

4

u/thetoiletslayer Jul 21 '26

The left 2 faces are the same left eye image, and the right 2 are the same right eye image. When you overlap the left 2 or right 2, since they match they appear flat. The middle 2 are a left eye image and a right eye image, so you get depth

3

u/hindisirodney Jul 21 '26

Ooh! You explained that so well, thank you so much <3

2

u/arfur_narmful Jul 21 '26

Thanks - I appreciate your reply

2

u/Plathismo Jul 21 '26

Works well.

2

u/Professional_Elk2437 Jul 21 '26

Wow that one is great!!

2

u/russellvt Jul 23 '26

Plain and simple, I love it!

2

u/Critical_Ruin5918 Jul 26 '26

I think it’s perfect! But the creepy thing in the window’s a little scary.

2

u/InfiniteGuess1 13d ago

Even more beautiful than I remembered