[MF3D.FORUM:338] Re: 1/30, er, no.

["Oleg Vorobyoff" <olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I hope we can all agree that the ultimate goal is to take good pictures.  I
think you can get as badly misdirected from that goal by doing precision
calculations as by using the 1/30 rule.  Stretching everything in view to fit
exactly between the window and optical infinity can ruin a shot as surely as
flattening it by misapplying the 1/30 rule.

As for the examples, they were honestly my typical shooting situations.  I
plugged the numbers in fully expecting the 1/30 rule to be way off, and was
quite surprised at how close it came to the calculations.  Even with the
counterexample given below, 25% may not be a significant error.  If the picture
is otherwise compelling, I doubt it would lose its impact if taken with a 1.5
inch base instead of a 2 inch base.  In fact, if the near point happens to be a
mass of tangled brush in front of much of the scene, it might best to set it
back a bit from the window.

Oleg Vorobyoff


Tom Deering wrote:


>Oleg offers several scenarios where the 1/30 rule seems to work well:
>
>    >Near detail:
>    > Near point: 2 feet
>    > Far point: 15 feet
>    > True stereo base: 0.88 inches
>    > 1/30 rule's base: 0.80 inches
>
>Okay, but now change one parameter: Near point
>Near point: 4 feet:
>True stereo base: 2.10 inches
>1/30 rule's base: 1.60 inches
>
>Wow, that's 25% off.  And that scenario is more likely, in my
>opinion.  Or with a far point of 8 feet, all other things the same,
>the 1/30 rule is off by 20%.  It would be trivial to create a list of
>inaccurate 1/30 solutions.