[MF3D.FORUM:674] Re: Stereo Resolution -- Increased by the Brain ??

["Harold Baize" <baize@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oleg is right of course, the brain takes information from
both eyes and combines it not only to produce stereopsis
but also greater detail. People like myself, who have
eyes that focus at different distances, can get by just
fine without glasses because the brain simply uses the
information from the eye that is in proper focus for
what he/she is attending, but at the loss of the finer
detail resolution. That is also the idea behind the
ill-conceived Stereo Graphic camera, with one lens fixed at
close focus and the other at infinity. It was an attempt
at an easy to use fixed focus camera during the days of
very slow slide film. (I have some slides that were made by
one of these cameras in the fifties and they are awful!).

A similar argument about integrated information can be made
about interlaced stereo video- detractors decry the low
resolution, claiming that the resolution is cut in half.
A standard video frame is made of two fields, each with
half the image. In a field sequential stereo frame these
are the left and right images. So some say you have half
the resolution since each field is only 240 lines rather
than 480, but in fact most of the information in the
two fields combine to make a single 480 line image just
as in a standard video frame, and where they differ you
get the added information of depth. The only noticeable
loss is in the edge detection needed to resolve text.

Get back on topic, I'd say double images do not "squeeze"
higher quality out of less expensive equipment except
that it adds stereo. After all, the cost and trouble is
doubled, so without the added dimension of stereo, why
bother. If you have stereo then you have added a decidedly
qualitative improvement far beyond the marginal increase in
resolution.

Harold




-----Original Message-----
From: Oleg Vorobyoff [mailto:olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

What is really intriguing to me is whether 3D could be used to increase the
apparent resolution of 2D imagery.  I know that duplicate non-stereo slides
look
sharper and more vibrant in a 3D viewer than one of the slides viewed in any
way.  This might be a means of squeezing MF quality out of 35mm equipment,
and
LF quality out of MF.