How possible would it be to "three-dimensionalize" this image? Or even better, the one linked-to below. Perhaps either viewable with red/blue glasses, or as a stereo image (to avoid color issues)? I know there's some uncertainty in the stellar distances, and there's more than a heck of a lot of stars to deal with, but considering that one of the frustrations associated with astronomy is that everything's so incomprehensibly far away, an image which shows some depth would increase in fascination with the square (or would it be the cube) of the surface area of the image. Being able to have a simple picture as a resource (however approximate) would make it so much easier to learn and appreciate the form of our galaxy, rather than constantly having to look up how many light-years a certain star or nebula or cluster is from us.
One of the things I like about Stéphane Guisard's image:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090925.html
is that the number of stars in front of the different dust clouds seems to give an indication of their distance: thus the Pipe Nebula, with hardly any stars between it and us, appears closer than the dark clouds to the left of it which have smatterings of star fields that seem to fade the intensity of their [the dust clouds'] color. It's exactly like how we can perceive distances on Earth based on the amount of intervening atmosphere: a (small) faded green tree is perceived as further from us than a (large) darker green tree. (On the other hand, M4, 7200 l.y., looks almost closer than Antares, 600 l.y.) Apollo astronauts on the Moon, however, were frequently unsure of their distance perception because the Moon has no atmosphere, and no trees--only rocks, which could be of any size. Now obviously the things in this [Milky Way] image are even more unfamiliar than anything to be seen on Earth or Moon, so my instinctual labeling of objects as "foreground" or "background" could be completely off base--which is exactly why we need a 3D version! How far is the galactic center (27000 +/-1000 l.y.) in relation to the size of the picture frame? Is it just beyond those dust clouds, maybe a spiral arm or two more? Or is it so far, and the things visible here so relatively close, that a 3D image would appear virtually indistinguishable from a 2D image? I guess all this would depend on the amount of separation between "eyes"--would "Milky Way in Springtime" (left eye) combined with "Fall Milky Way" (right eye) be enough?
I'm eagerly awaiting the production of this new image, so if you must dash my hopes with reasons why it couldn't be, please do so gently.
