3DGunner

Thanks for appreciation.😀

Two more images on the same theme, but taken in another "location". (for cross-viewing)

Another one from the same series.

I like the first one, it's more interesting.

This is one of the most hardware demanding formulas I've come across, even if it doesn't seem to justify the requirements.😀

(for cross viewing)

This is a good solution: 3Dstereo Stereo Wide-View Viewer for Prints and Monitors

The bigger the prints or the screens, the more spectacular the stereograms are, if they are done correctly.

Actually, the 1/30 rule is a good start that has been used for decades by stereographers. It states that the interaxial separation should only be 1/30th of the distance from your camera to the closest subject.

For macro you need an inter-axial distance of the optical system much smaller than the interpupillary distance, and for distant objects it will be much larger.

Only some formulas require serious hardware resources and a long time for rendering, which contain many iterations and in situations with complex lighting, reflections and shadows, at high resolutions.

I said "up to" several hours.🙂

A honeycomb structure. (for cross viewing)

Your photo is interesting and successful in itself, but without lighting effects it is far from something that looks real as a night photo.

How To Turn Day Into Night in Lightroom

Lighting effects are essential to obtain a believable result. 🙂

This is also interesting.😀

Taking the image with the fractal as an example, I deduced that you prefer the more aggressive processing options.😀
I made two more of your images applying an aggressive processing.

This is not 3D, but it is very interesting.

Attached is an "sharpened" version.😀

A Borg ship under construction.

A probe was sent to explore the structure - video clip with sound. (for cross-viewing)

Was my pleasure! 🙂

I find your pictures to be very interesting. The bigger they are, the better. It looks spectacular on my 55" PC screen.
It deserves to be printed in large sizes! 🙂

The first image at the original resolution and a bit brighter:

So your pictures are very interesting as they are. What is generally called "sharpening" cannot be applied to this type of images, due to the content of the image.
It's like trying to sharpen some clouds...😀

But an image reconstruction can be done with the accentuation of some graphic effects. This means an "artistic intervention" on the image, with variable effects, at the discretion of the one who makes them.
I devised a "recipe" and applying several variables in different software (including Topaz AI) resulted in some images from which I chose two examples that I consider relatively "balanced" for the desired effect.

Since anyone can download the images and view them, I assume they are not "secret" and I will post two comparative examples.🙂
If you like them, I can improve them all, but please prepare them in maximum quality .jpg or .TIFF format. The RAW format is useless in this case.

............................................................
It is not a good idea to take pictures at high ISO if it is not absolutely necessary, even if the noise can be removed using AI algorithms. Some fine details cannot be recovered.

Open Cube said: "Thing is what I'm doing this for is super experimental stuff. I'm mainly curious to see how it "handles" the unique situation my images present. It's not possible for the images to be in focus due to some science I'm no where near intelligent enough to explain. So I wanna see what the software does in such a situation."

Enhancing this kind of pictures may imply a complex recipe, not just "sharpening". I don't think AI sharpening will be enough.
Still no samples yet for test.

I replied to OpenCube. He asked to see the effect of the sharpening applied with Topaz Photo Ai on some of his pictures.

If the answer is given to the immediately superior post, or to the initial subject of the discussion, it does not require "quote".

Only discussions without examples are not significant.