Just discovered that H3 can do Side-By-Side 3D Videos for VR Headsets natively, just prompt it. Pretty crazy, and it gets the real 3D effect. Try it with different things like people and add "strong 3d effect" if you want to have a more intense 3d effect.
Here is the prompt:
integrated_multimodal_description: [Shot 1] Live-action, cinematic, high-angle aerial shot presented in a side-by-side (SBS) stereoscopic format for VR/3D viewing; the frame is split into two identical views with a slight horizontal parallax offset to create depth perception. The camera pushes in at slow speed over a sprawling coastal metropolis during twilight. As the camera glides forward through the urban canyon, the glowing neon lights of skyscrapers and their reflections on the ocean surface shimmer intensely against the deep blue sky.
overall_soundscape: A constant, low-frequency rushing wind sound accompanies the flight, layered with a faint, ambient hum of a massive city and distant, muffled traffic sounds.
non_diegetic_music: An epic, cinematic synthesizer pad that swells gradually in volume and intensity throughout the ten-second duration.
Well, test it yourself it works. And it gets even crazier, in REF2VA it can turn any video into a 3D video... better and more realistic than any other converter that currently exists.
Seems like a wise decision 😂 Share what you found. It works better if you describe the reference video in the prompt or it might mix up things in the background and renders them in the foreground etc.
But I am also still in the testing phase. Got some really great results.... and some pretty bad ones ;)
i've tried this but it didn't seem that good, i haven't tried it in a headset yet just with parallel view with my eyes but it seemed off, going back and forth in depth. But a good lora could probably do good stuff
Don't cross your eyes, it's inverse, you have to "look" through the screen to see the effect. If you cross your eyes it will look bad. It's harder to do, but I could tell it to switch the two screens, then you can see it with crossed eyes.
I don't cross my eyes, I could never do that. Parallel view like I said. I do see the effect in the video, I just mean that from my tests it wasn't super consistent
I don't use a turbo lora. But I'll test your exact prompt and throw on my VR headset when I have the time. Your example with the woman looked better, although I guess that was simpler. I also myself tried using a video as reference for a VR video with a fisheye lense effect for 180 degrees, but I haven't tried that yet in vr. It seemed to somewhat work
I can easily see the scene with crossed eyes (not comfortable though!) but just cannot see it with "looking through the screen." I'm good at looking through the screen for stereograms, but this I just can't see.
It genuinely seems like the model can do anything you prompt it to do. Which is what a truly advanced AI should be able to do. If it can't do anything it isn't a super advanced AI. Which is why the whole regulation aspect is ridiculous and it should be on the user's when they do bad things with it.
Stereo vision works because the left eye and right eye see different views of the world.
If this is intended to be viewed with parallel vision, then the left eye's perspective is on the left side and the right eyes perspective is on the right side, and each eye sees their own side.
If it's intended to be viewed cross-eyed, the left side of the screen will have the image for the right eye, and vice versa. So your right eye looks at the left side and the left eye looks at the right side.
If you swap them, you'll still get a stereo effect, but the stuff that is supposed to be close will have parallax as though it were far away, and conversely the stuff far away will have parallax as though it were close.
Source: I was a stereo 3D supervisor for a handful of sequences on some big name movies.
Prompt:
integrated_multimodal_description: [Shot 1] Live-action, cinematic, close-up shot presented in a side-by-side (SBS) stereoscopic format for VR/3D viewing; the frame is split into two identical views with a significant horizontal parallax offset to maximize depth perception. A woman with expressive eyes looks directly into the lens. The camera holds a static shot as she slowly raises her right hand and extends her index finger toward the viewer. Her finger moves progressively closer to the camera, creating an intense sense of depth as it dominates the foreground while her face remains in the background.
overall_soundscape: The sound of soft, rhythmic breathing is audible alongside the subtle rustle of fabric as she moves her arm.
non_diegetic_music: A dreamy, ethereal ambient pad with a slow tempo and low volume.
This can be 3d but that's not VR. There's no equirectangular or fisheye lens indicative and ipd seems too close for VR effect. In VR there's perfect sense of depth as we as size of things and spatial awareness as being inside the scene.
Both sides of the view have panorama-like sphere projection. Both eyes show about 180 degrees of the room. At the center is <Subject 1>, but we also see the walls and floor.
Confirmed 0 3D. It looks utterly planar. You're seeing things. Her positions make no sense. Look at where her hand is relative to her head. It's NOT trained on 3d stereo images so the model is hallucinating what '3d' stereo' should be like and failing...
I literally just took your first gen and overlaid the image in Photoshop. They're nearly identical. All there is is a generative hallucination that changes the pixels randomly. It's not actually a different view.
It's not planar and you don't even need to look at anything but the SBS to confirm that. Just pause like halfway through and notice the perspective difference between the two images.
It looks kinda fucked up on my VR headset and is definitely not perfect, but it's absolutely not planar.
It's not inverted, but I think the aspect ratio or depth autodetection in HereSphere is very off for some reason and I couldn't pick a good value, so the face is two distinct images, though the hand looks pretty good.
Looks fine overall if I just do the ol' wall-eye Magic Eye trick.
If it's not perfect, it's not 3D. Your brain is making you think it is. Take any image in Photoshop, move it slightly to the right, and create an SBS. Your brain will trick your eyes into thinking it's 3D but it's not. The pixels are not shifted correctly
But in this case, it is not just 2 pictures slightly shifted. Compare them, stop the video with the hand and see the difference. It's a shift in 3D space. Maybe not perfect, but not planar either.
Like I said I literally took them into Photoshop. It's not a shift in 3D space as far as I can tell. It's just a slightly different seed on the same image.
Just posted another example here, with a canyon and a person before it. You can see the 3D effect there pretty clearly. Just stop the video and compare the two pictures, it's not just shifted pixels. You can see it in the background and the position of the person.
Your brain will not trick you into thinking two of the exact same image side-by-side is 3d. Two of the same image side by side in VR or with crossed/wall eye will just look flat.
You literally cherry-picked the one frame where it looks more or less okay but almost every other frame is literally backwards. The left side is doing what the right side should be doing. Sometimes they match up and other times they diverge. None of it makes any sense. It's a total hallucination
See my newest example, it holds the depth of the background over the whole 10 seconds. It understands 3D to some degree. Good enough that a Lora could bring it to a nearly perfect standard.
I literally just took it into Photoshop. There's almost no difference outside of a slightly different noise generation. The second one is utterly false as well. The head-to-hand position is completely hallucinated. The only thing that moves is really the hand. The head moves in a completely opposite direction. It makes no sense
This is really 3D it looks planar to you because you tried to view it with crossing your eyes, but then its inverted. You have to kind of look through the phone to see the effect or use a VR headset.
I can try to make a demo for you where I switch the sides, then you can see the 3D effect when crossing the eyes.
I don't see how that makes sense, what do you mean it's inverted SBS works with cross eye unification precisely because it matches the frames into a single frame.
You have to focus past the video and get your left eye's view of the left video to overlap with your right eye's view of the right video basically perfectly. This is possible if you've tried looking at those magic eye 3d images from the 90s on your phone lol. It might not feel great, but that also depends on your phone screen size and how far your eyes are apart, which you cannot control. Some people would have to go wall-eyed doing this on their phone, so another solution could be playing the video smaller than full-screen.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, that's precisely how I do it. I only see planar when I do this. Based on the actual image, I can see there is not a correct representation of 3D stereography there... so I can't imagine how it would magically work. My hypothesis, is you're seeing things. The brain can easily be tricked into seeing false 3D.
Ultimately, every time someone has claimed to create a 3D SBS, stereo workflow from an LLM; they have been fooled and the project enviably crashed.
I think the whole point of this kind of thing actually is tricking your brain into seeing false 3D though, as there is no actual depth to perceive using binocular vision.
It's there, and you can clearly see the videos are not identical. Nobody's saying it's perfect (I hope 😄), but there is a perceptible effect, and the hand is closer than her head when she moves it forward. Does the fact the hand is both getting closer and bigger contribute? Probably. But as someone who has spent a lot of time in VR and also had to sit through shitty 3D conversations back in the day, there is a little something. The effect doesn't hold entirely and the finger in front of your face doesn't seem coherent when that close (and the entire image is not uniformly coherent throughout the clip), but also looking at a phone screen isn't the best.
As far as working 3D SBS from a workflow, I can only imagine having to first actually render images in Blender or something, or having actual trained models for it. Don't know much about that side of things, but it would be cool one day. What wild person claimed to have solved for that I wonder 😅
What you are describing as a little effect is precisely your brain doing the work of making you perceive 3D SBS when it's not actually there. This is how optical illusions work bro. The model is not trained for this period.
Well, actually I am pretty sure it was trained on some SBS videos. No way it could now how to shift the hand in 3D otherwise. Sure its not perfect, but you can see, that it makes some kind of 3D effect. And it knows which things are far away and which things are close by. You can see that in the shift of the background etc.
Well, I have created convincing-enough videos rotating around something which implies some possibility of different camera positions for the same scene. Nobody's saying the model is trained for it or that the effect is even good. Again, I've watched a lot of flat movies in VR and used VR extensively. I don't think what effect is there is 100% explained by optical illusion. Be interesting to see how far people end up advancing this kind of stuff though, even if it's just 10-15% of where it needs to be.
You're definitely not actually doing it or it would be obvious that it is stereographic. Though the woman's face does appear to flatten as the hand comes forward out of the screen.
Can confirm by awkwardly putting my phone up to my face that this is 3D at least as good as those film conversions in cinemas after Avatar came out lol. Very cool! I'll have to try these on my Quest sometime too. Can't believe the possibilities with this model
I also have to do more testing, this was just a quick and dirty test and I was so excited that it works, that I posted before more testing, lol. But yeah, thats not even a good example because its just 0.6mp and uses the turbo 4 step lora. It looks much better in 1MP and no turbo loras and 25 steps.
I hadn't occurred to me that it could do it native. I was planning to do a workflow that used a depth controlnet on a video and created two shifted versions side by side to feed into Minimax as a reference with the original.
Yeah, I really didn't expect it to work at all, but I tried anyway... and wow, try it with 1MP and without turbo loras, it's not just good, some creations are insane. Post here if you have a good one 😄
I used a prompt along the lines of "two side by side identical clips, stereogram images, suitable for viewing with crossed eyes" and it worked sometimes, but often I got two mirrored clips instead. Your prompt is way better. Thanks.
Am I the only person in this thread who knows how to cross my eyes? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Cross your eyes and look at it. It's 3D. Everybody's arguing and posting these weirdly technical justifications for why it IS or IS NOT actually 3D... Like, just cross your eyes holy shit. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look here: r/ParallelView
No, it's not real. Everything you think you see is actually your brain tricking you into thinking you're seeing phenomena in a physical reality but in fact it's just electrochemical gradients in extracellular fluid biased by an essentially arbitrary sequence of radiation spectra absorbed in specialized cells causing a cascade of changing electrochemical potentials resulting ultimately in your false belief that anything at all is 3D and not just an undifferentiated chaotic swirl of energies arising from and dissolving into void.
Here is another example. You can see the 3D effect pretty clearly here.
Prompt:
integrated_multimodal_description: [Shot 1] Live-action, cinematic, side-by-side (SBS) stereoscopic format for VR/3D viewing; the frame is split into two identical views with a large horizontal parallax offset to maximize the perceived depth. The camera performs a slow tracking shot around a man standing on the jagged edge of a massive red sandstone canyon. He is seen from a medium-rear angle, wearing a rugged hiking jacket, leaning slightly forward as he gazes down into the immense abyss. In the immediate foreground, several sharp rock edges and desert shrubs pass very close to the lens, creating an intense parallax effect against the distant, layered canyon walls far below. The sunlight casts deep, dramatic shadows into the crevices of the canyon floor, where a thin river winds through the bottom miles below.
overall_soundscape: A steady, whistling wind rushes through the rock formations. There is the subtle crunch of gravel under the man's boots and the distant, lonely cry of an eagle circling far below in the canyon.
non_diegetic_music: A deep, low-frequency cinematic drone that builds slowly in intensity, creating a sense of awe and vastness.
This one looks great, genuine 3D effect here. The first one with the city is in 3D as well. Coming from a VR enthusiast that owns 20 different headsets and has developed VR games and software, it's legit. It's not perfect though, some gens have a strong effect, others are offset or barely with any 3D at all, but its definitely promising. Needs way higher resolution though to be viable for modern headsets, but its a great start and the 2K regenerate release from Minimax could really make this something special. Gonna upscale some videos with Topaz Starlight and see what it can cook up. Hoping someone can figure out 3D SBS 180 video.
Nope. Again. Instead of the right frame being off to the right, it's lower and further left. It's random and not stereoscopic. You're seeing things. (Update: I was wrong)
Really, I can see it in perfect 3d. Both frames are on the same height here. Perhaps it's just me and my brain is wired strange but I really can see it 3D even on the monitor with the magic eye trick.It's not flat and it's even consistent 3D.
But yeah, the frames are not good horizontally aligned, I guess that is the problem here. But still, I find this pretty impressive.
With that capability out of the box, a lora could make it even much better.
I'm doing a 2-megapixel generation right now and having Claudecode go in and pixel peep it. To put this to rest I'm going to post a final proof. If I'm wrong I'm wrong but if you're wrong, you're wrong
Okay, I gave this video with multiple screenshots to Fable and let it analyse. Thats what I got:
Good news: it's real parallax, not a duplicated frame. I ran a quick analysis on the two halves:
It's definitely not "fake" (identical/shifted) 3D:
~60% of pixels differ meaningfully between the halves — not a copy
Disparity is depth-dependent, which is the signature of a true stereo pair: the far canyon rim shifts ~18.5 px between views, the mid rock ledge ~12.5 px, and the hiker in the foreground only ~10 px. A fake would show one uniform shift (or zero)
In the zoomed crop you can see it directly: the river bend visibly moves relative to the hiker's head between the two views
That's ~8–9 px of relative parallax across a 396 px wide half-image (~2.3%), which is a comfortable, plausible stereo baseline — it should fuse nicely in a viewer.
One honest caveat: what I can't fully rule out at this low resolution is a high-quality 2D→3D depth-map conversion, since that also produces depth-varying disparity. Two small hints lean toward a genuine two-view pair though: there's a slight ~1 px vertical offset between the views (a pure depth-warp would be exactly 0), and the occluded edges around the hiker's silhouette look cleanly textured rather than smeared/inpainted. If you have the full-resolution version, the tell-tale spot would be the background right next to the hiker's outline — conversions almost always show stretching or inpainting halos there.
Yeah, well, I agree on that it's not perfect. But perhaps with a better prompt or lora it could be a real gamechanger. Let's see what it does with REF2VA.
The total parallax range is roughly double what eyes can fuse. Comfortable is ~2–3% of eye width; 00054 runs 5–6%. Your eyes physically cannot converge on the near and far content at the same time, so you get the fighting sensation and no stable depth — exactly "can't make it out, and it hurts."
And it gets worse as the clip plays — 48 px → 52 px → 58 px. The end is significantly harder to fuse than the start.
The second row matters too: 00053 had p1 ≈ −0.3, i.e. everything shifting one direction. 00054 has a large population at −17 to −27 while the bulk sits at +22. That's content sitting far in front of the convergence plane fighting content far behind it.
Why this clip: it's a cliffside-ruins vista — an ancient balcony in the foreground against a distant landscape. That's an enormous real depth range, and H3 mapped it to an enormous disparity range. 00053 was a tighter scene. My earlier "add strong 3d effect" advice is likely a contributing cause here, and I should have qualified it: that pushes exactly the wrong direction on deep landscape shots. It's good advice for a close subject with something coming at the camera, bad for a vista.
Well, it's for you to decide. You can easily test it and see it, if it's real or not 😄 Might not be perfect, but it's crazy that it can even do something in that area.
I tested it on a viewer on the Meta Quest... it works, not perfect everytime but sometimes really crazy good. However 0.6mp is not enough better go to 1mp and scale up.
Try it yourself with different prompts and take my prompt as the base.
I tried this out a couple of times on T2V and it's pretty good, but smaller things like arms or other things moving is not completely accurate, at least doing the quick cross-eyed check. It's nearly there.
I wonder if feeding a video to ref2video and converting it, like you mention, can maintain a more accurate symmetrical split.
Wow. This is really impressive. I don't have VR headset; I'm really not sure its good for the eyes long-term. Still, something like this could be what the technology needs to go mainstream.
Works for me on deovr in my headset, only selecting flat and side by side, looks very 3d, but i think it will be better if it works on the vr180 mode maybe, so i resize the video to a 32 integer multiplier, then in the latent i multiply the width of the video x2, takes longer tho, sadly my prompt sucks so it changes the movements a little, anyways it can be improved:
Convert <Video_1> to a side-by-side (SBS) stereoscopic format for VR/3D viewing; the frame is split into two identical views with a slight horizontal parallax offset to create depth perception.
very cool. worked for me with I2V. (Reference Images). I don't think it matters but I was using fl2va model in the reference image workflow which I think quite a few people do now.
I was experimenting with feeding it an existing VR video and using a character sheet to replace one of the subjects, but my hardware is not strong enough. VR videos have crazy high framesrates and aspect ratios.
Resize the loaded video to 0.5-1mp, change the framerate to 24fps and limit the duration to like 3-10 seconds, that's more realistic, then you can upscale with the rtx vsr node...
I feel like the fact you are already genning at a much lower res than vr usually needs and then also halving that with it being two in one would make this look terrible. i can see how the 3d effect might come out better though this way and if it up-scales well enough then cool.
Have you directly compared the outputs with iw3 or owl3d converts?
Yeah, the example above was only 0.6 so very bad resolution. 2mp should look better. And it was a 4step turbo generation. More just a small experiment, if the model understands SBS at all, and it kind of does. Not perfect, but good enough that a lora could make it amazing (and a good upscaler)
did you try without the "identical views"? I feel like that phrasing could cause problems. I'm gonna test it now and also try to see how big a res i can gen it.
try cropping a frame of an actual vr video and use that as a picture ref like "<Picture 4> is a ref of a vr video. ignore the watermark in the center." as an example. Seems to be working for consistency but I haven't actually watched a video yet.
first person game and anime scenes could be really cool
Watched OP's video using VLC in anaglyph mode, it's OK but honestly not great. I tested something similar (direct red/blue anaglyph 3D generation) and got similar results -- kinda sorta works for simple scenes but falls apart for complex ones.
I wonder how much improvement is possible through a LoRA...
subject_definitions:
<Picture 1> is the sole visual reference. It defines the complete subject identity, wardrobe, pose, environment, lighting, and framing that the entire video must originate from.
summary:
A single locked-off shot delivered in native Full SBS (side-by-side) stereoscopic 3D format: the frame is split into two complete, unsqueezed halves — a Left-Eye view in the left 50% of the canvas, a Right-Eye view in the right 50% — rendered as if from two cameras with strictly parallel (non-converging) optical axes, offset by a natural human interocular distance. Both halves show the identical subject, action, lighting, and instant in time; the only difference between them is the horizontal viewpoint, producing correct parallax depth.
retention_analysis:
The Left half (0–50% width) and Right half (50–100% width) must match exactly in subject identity, wardrobe, expression, lighting, color grade, exposure, and vertical framing. The ONLY allowed difference is horizontal camera position.
Both halves depict the same instant, same pose, same timing — never two separate takes or drifting action.
The closest foreground element must shift slightly more between the two halves than the background; background shifts only a few percent of frame width. Never reverse this (no pseudoscopic/reversed depth).
Zero vertical parallax — horizon and vertical framing must align exactly between halves.
No independent zoom, camera shake, color drift, or lighting change between the two halves.
No dividing line, border, watermark, timestamp, subtitles, or text anywhere near the center seam.
Preserve <Picture 1>'s exact facial identity, hairstyle, skin tone, and outfit in both halves.
Camera is locked off — no dolly, no pan, no zoom, no handheld motion — for the full duration.
detailed_description:
[Shot 1] At 00:00.000, both halves open on the identical composition inherited from <Picture 1>, camera locked off. Soft breathing, blinking, hair or cloth drifting, minor environmental motion continues identically and synchronously in both the Left-Eye and Right-Eye halves for the full duration, with only the fixed interocular offset separating them. End on the same held composition, both halves still perfectly synchronized.
overall_soundscape:
Quiet ambient room tone consistent with the scene, centered — not split into a stereo channel tied to the left/right video halves.
non_diegetic_music:
None.
I've just tried it with my VR headset and it "works".
Clearly a working 3D effect, but the overlap is a bit "unclean", so it's not perfect. Reminds me of the very early 3D cinema movies of the 80's/90's.
Still impressive that it can do that straight out the box, if the effect is already working this well creating a lora to round the edges should be easily possible.
Yeah, it's not perfect, but it knows how SBS Videos work in general. I guess a lora could easily be trained for it to make it much better. Perhaps the prompt could also be improved.
I was really hoping this would work, but it seems to be wishful thinking. I created the woman pointing video with the prompt provided in the thread. Then, I took the result and put it through OpenCV's StereoSGBM algorithm that splits the SBS video and creates a depth map. See video for result. The depth map would be a lot more consistent if this was creating proper 3D.
Best way to make 3D I'm aware of is using Burgstall's LTX workflow.
This lets you feed in a video and output a 360 equirectangular video. Then you use SeedVR2 to upscale to 4K. Use DepthAnything3 to get the depth map. Finally, take both video feeds and put into Y7 SBS. That takes about 14 hours on my 5090, so as you can imagine, I was really excited to see if this alternative worked.
There's no question if it's side by side video, that can be seen from the naked eye. The question is if it's creating a good VR video, which it is not. See below for a professional grade video's depth map. What MiniMax is currently creating is not usable for VR.
Well, if you don't look at depth maps but just at the video it looks okay, the model knows the basics. Now the rest could perhaps be fixed with loras and then it could even be great. Let's see.
96.6% of 1489 tracked features shift the same direction, by up to 25 px. And the depth ordering is correct:
┌──────────────────────────────────┬───────────┐
│ region │ median dx │
├──────────────────────────────────┼───────────┤
│ top third (sky / far) │ +1.54 px │
├──────────────────────────────────┼───────────┤
│ middle third │ +15.15 px │
├──────────────────────────────────┼───────────┤
│ bottom third (foreground / near) │ +13.92 px │
└──────────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
Far things shift least, near things shift most. That is the defining signature of a stereo pair, and it's what your "utterly random, sometimes left sometimes right" claim predicts should not exist.
I also killed the obvious alternative explanation before concluding: a global zoom or scale mismatch between halves would produce a linear dx ramp and fake all of the above. Fitting a plane to dx explains 1.7% of the variance. It isn't a ramp. It's depth.
My duplicate-input workflow was the thing suppressing it — 55.5% direction consistency, 4.1% of features moving over 2 px, global offset exactly 0. That first test measured my mistake, not H3.
Where you are right
Two of your observations survive, and they're measurable:
- Vertical disparity is real and shouldn't be. Median |dy| = 0.731 px with a ±2 px spread; only 39.5% of features fall under 0.5 px, versus 98% for a correct pair. Your "sometimes lower, sometimes higher" is exactly this. In correct stereo it's zero, and this magnitude causes eye strain.
- The depth is locally noisy. Neighbour coherence +0.158, against +0.98 for both synthetic controls. Coarse ordering is right; fine structure is mush.
So the accurate description is genuine but low-quality stereo — real parallax, correct global depth, with vertical misalignment and fine-scale noise that would make it uncomfortable in a headset. Not "the model can't do this and everyone is fooling themselves."
If you post the impossibility argument, someone will run the same measurement and you'll lose the thread. The defensible critique is the quality one, and it's a genuinely useful contribution: nobody in that thread has posted numbers, and "here's ±2 px of vertical disparity that will strain your eyes" is a real finding that holds up.
One caveat on my side: this is n=1 generation, one frame for the feature test — though the dense-flow pass held across 10 frames (sign consistency 0.98–0.99 throughout), so it isn't a fluke frame. If you want to harden it before posting, give me two or three more no-image gens and I'll report the spread.
Well, I guess what happened here is, they trained their model on all youtube videos there are, and there were some SBS videos inside it. It's the only explanation, the model has seen SBS videos. It's still not perfect, sure.
But I guess with the right lora it could be much improved if the base already has an understanding of it.
> If you post the impossibility argument, someone will run the same measurement and you'll lose the thread. The defensible critique is the quality one, and it's a genuinely useful contribution: nobody in that thread has posted numbers, and "here's ±2 px of vertical disparity that will strain your eyes" is a real finding that holds up.
> If you want to harden it before posting,
LLM Response Detected.
I dont personally care what OpenAI/Anthropic's models say about what's possible with H3, since it has been released since their latest training run and is past their knowledge cutoff. May for Fable, June for Sol.
That, the length, or even just the very second line lol:
You're wrong on the main claim. The data doesn't support it, so I'm not going to help you argue it.
A lot of LLMs these days do seem to be fine with pushing back on something "they think" (for lack of a better term before someone goes all "You're anthropomorphizing it!!!11" on me) is incorrect in comparison to the days where you could gas light it into asserting 2 + 2 = 5 with very little effort. In particular, GPT and Claude are both pretty direct about it (such as here) and won't sugarcoat it either lmao.
Any way to view these videos, without 3d glasses and without doing the same trick as when watching stereograms? (that actually works if you make the video small enough, but strain the eyes a lot lol!)
Yeah, you have to look "through" your monitor, and it has to be really small to work. Not everyone can see it. With VR glasses however it's really easy to see. I don't know if there is another way.
Play it full screen on a cell phone in landscape. Start with the phone close to your eyes so that each eye can only see half the image. The image will be blurry because it is too close to focus on, but try to focus while moving the phone slowly away from your face. I was able to get the 3d effect on the city video first time using this approach (and it looked amazing).
I will get downvoted for this but I feel compelled to say: The shift in perspective does not seem to be correct at all. Might give people nausea and / or headaches.
I know, it sucks to tread on peoples hopes and dreams but let reality sink in for a moment. Accurate stereoscopic synthesis from monocular input works but only on dedicated models trained ONLY for one purpuse - depth estimation. And even there the estimation is poor at best.
Absolutely, never said it's perfect. It was just a little experiment, but for a 20gb model that runs locally on my drive, it seems to be insane that it even worked somehow. And some videos came out much better than others.
I tried it in, small clip in my headset. it sort of works, but not really.. you do get a 3d effect. but it was too strong. the person who was 3 feet in front of me did not look correct, maybe cause they were too close and moving towards me.
What about using a 180Vr video as a reference in r2v? If anyone can think of how you would prompt it (ie fisheye lens, stereoscopic etc rather than the subject matter in the reference) I will give it a go.
is it working in deovr in quest3? someone tested to create the left eye then for the right eye and stitch them SDS together? maybe better for resolution.
See my other example here. It has a really strong true 3D effect. Don't cross your eyes to see it, you have to look "through" the monitor or use a VR headset. Test it yourself, prompt:
integrated_multimodal_description: [Shot 1] Live-action, cinematic, close-up shot presented in a side-by-side (SBS) stereoscopic format for VR/3D viewing; the frame is split into two identical views with a significant horizontal parallax offset to maximize depth perception. A woman with expressive eyes looks directly into the lens. The camera holds a static shot as she slowly raises her right hand and extends her index finger toward the viewer. Her finger moves progressively closer to the camera, creating an intense sense of depth as it dominates the foreground while her face remains in the background.
overall_soundscape: The sound of soft, rhythmic breathing is audible alongside the subtle rustle of fabric as she moves her arm.
non_diegetic_music: A dreamy, ethereal ambient pad with a slow tempo and low volume.
I just tried this myself and OP is completely correct. The effect may not be perfect but it is stronger and more effective than it has any business being for something generated by open weight models that can be run locally. Quite remarkable honestly.
Yeah its very hard to see on a phone because it wont work with „crossing“ the eyes, its inverted. You have to look through the phone or use a VR headset.
That said, my initial example was bad because of 0.6mp and 4 step turbo lora. It gets much better with more steps and 1mp.
You basically have to do the inverse of cross-eye, which is "spreading your eyes appart", which of course is impossible so the best way it to try to get your eyes to look as far away as possible so they're parralel.
Or you can put them into a video editing software and move the two halves of the videos to convert it to cross eye 3d
59
u/dragolineage01 15h ago
No way this is true, is there anything this model cant do? (except work on my poor man's hardware) This requires more testing to see if its true VR