[MF3D.FORUM:1089] Re: Miniturization.

["Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxx>]

Bill et al.  This is a very interesting issue that goes
far beyond MF stereo...

Since a lot of it is a mater of perception and expectations,
I will give you a personal opinion... Others might have
other opinions and there is room for everyone aboard.

>So are you saying that this is a pit fall that is not correctable
>in MF stereo?  If you always shoot at 2.5" then you would loose 
>the desired effect when things are further away then say 20 ft, right?   

That's correct if by "desired effect" you mean stereo effect.
But there is something else here called "realism", which has 
always been one of stereo photography's strongest points.  The 
"realism" is reduced when you deviate from the so called "ortho 
stereo" conditions.  One of these conditions is that the spacing 
of the lenses matches the spacing of your eyes.

So, what are you going to go for?  Stereo effect or realism?

A lot depends on your subject.  If your subject is a scenic,
the scale of which is unknown to the viewer, no one will notice
the increased stereo base and a mild hyperstereo will look
very nice, deep and real.  But if you want to include people,
cars and familiar everyday objects, your viewers might notice
the hyperstereo effect.

That's not necessarily a "bad thing".  Things look a little
bit funny but interesting never-the-less.

I have decided that realism is important for me and good
photography is more important than strong stereo effect.
I will take pictures with an ordinary stereo camera of
things that are far away and I will be pleased, even though
the stereo effect is reduced.  But I will also take 
hyperstereos and anything else that exploits the 3rd
dimension.

I have also decided that I cannot live with twin cameras
side-by-side in everyday scenes and I NEED a stereo camera
with lenses 55-75mm apart.

>Is this a very small part of the population that experiences 
>miniaturization, or a healthy part of the population?

It is hard to tell.  This is noticed more often by
beginners.  Seasoned stereo photographers become
immune to such effects.  I always considered such
comments as a positive thing because they demonstrate
that the viewer is comparing the stereo picture with
the real thing.  There are three other types of comments
in this category: 1) People look "frozen" or statues.
2) Cardboard effect (people or animals look like cardboard
cutouts), 3) Stretch (faces of people look stretched - this
comment comes in stereo projection).  The beginners who
make these comments have a strong & healthy stereo perception,
which is good.  I would be wondered about those who don't
see these effects (is that you Bill? :))

>Has any of you enthusiast experience this?  

I am immune to it.  I will only notice/comment if it is
very exaggerated.  I will also comment the reverse way.
If you take a picture of a miniature scene (like small
houses, toy people, etc.) I will say that it looks like
a hyperstereo.  I noticed the cardboarding effect in my
first Realist stereo pair, but I don't see it any more.
I noticed the stretch in my first Realist closeup of a
person. I thought it was awful!  I don't see it any 
more.  Such is life...

George