Maybe I have it mixed up then because the way I’m doing it is losing focus and letting it adjust until I see something. I thought I was going crosseyed but I didn’t have a mirror so I can’t be sure.
Comment on Can you see magic eye pictures?
BroBot9000@lemmy.world 1 day agoBring the page close to your nose, let your eyes kinda naturally loose focus from distance. Then slowly start to pull the page back and you should get it.
Kinda difficult to describe.
Check back when you are sober and see if you get it to work.
TheReanuKeeves@lemmy.world 1 day ago
BroBot9000@lemmy.world 1 day ago
For the cross eye version you just need to hold out the page at normal viewing distance and cross your eyes till the 3d image pops.
Sounds like you are doing it the regular way. Which is the more difficult one for most people that have issues with magic eyes.
Glad you got to experience them!
TheReanuKeeves@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’m glad too, I have so many things to look at now lol
BroBot9000@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Here’s another one for ya! If you do it the right way you’ll clearly see the turtles head pop out towards you and with the cross eye way it’s quite difficult to recognize the head when it’s pushed backwards.
asmoranomar@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The way this works is that the image is designed to appear ‘beyond’ the surface it is printed on. It’s much easier to relax your eyes and pretend you’re looking at what’s ‘behind’ the paper. Kind of like 3d chalk art on the road in a way.
The other way of crossing your eyes works because you’re swapping the left and right eye, which gives a different, inverted appearance. Instead of a foreground image popping out of the background, it looks like the other way. Like looking in a box, kinda.
I can do both, but the latter is more difficult, sometimes requires a specific distance, and can be painful if you force it. If the image is too big, you may only be able to see a part of it. I think the first method is easier to do and to learn/train. Either way, you aren’t looking at what’s ‘on the surface’.
…
The best way I can explain is: pretend you’re sitting on the toilet, really tired and you have nothing to look at so you just lose focus and gaze at random stuff. When the tiles or cracks start to make pictures that aren’t there, that’s kind of the effect you want.
TheReanuKeeves@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’m definitely doing the distance thing
asmoranomar@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Oh that one is a good one, it’s very busy. Using the first method the trees are on the ‘bottom’ and everything progressively pops out with the fish/turtle on ‘top’.
The other way is reverse, the trees are on the ‘top’ and the fish are on the ‘bottom’ (like I’m looking in that ‘box’). It’s also really hard to see the whole picture this way, but that’s just me.
Also, ‘In a Box’ might not be the best analogy, you can make one that intentionally feels like you’re looking inside something – it’s just that most of these are made to pop out at you.
Carrolade@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This works, but the quicker method for me was to hold the book over my head, out of my line of sight while I focused my eyes on something a little farther away (5’ away is fine). Then you can simply move the book downward into your field of vision while refusing to let your eyes refocus. It should be blurry, because you’re still focusing past it, despite it being right in front of your face. Then just relax and let your brain do the work.
This method got by far the quickest and most reliable results for me, most pop suddenly into view in just a couple seconds.
I think this method works best because you’re using established muscle memory to focus your eyes on an object at a measurable, consistent distance, and then just not letting them change. Removes several variables from the equation.