[MF3D.FORUM:1090] Re: Miniturization.

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

It is nice to discuss philosophy in this otherwise very
technical list :)

>YOU have to decide which is preferable. For me it's a no brainer. I 
>would much rather see the 3D. The miniaturization is a "feature", not 
>a "defect" to me. Let's face it, 3D of distant objects isn't natural
>anyway. 

Well, exactly... Do you want to record the scene as your eyes
saw it or as a giant would see it?  The answer is not so obvious
to me.  

I have another theory which might raise a few hairs... The more
realistic the recording and viewing media, the less the 2D scene
is a problem.  A superb MF SLIDE viewed in a superb achromatic
viewer will show the scene as experienced in reality with depth
coming from the position of the stereo window.  It would be
equivalent to viewing Grand Canyon out of a real window.
But if the image is a print viewed with a lousy stereoscope
or (much worse) in a computer freeviewed... then FORGET IT!
When SUPERB QUALITY is missing, DEPTH is needed because
that's all there is to it.

Bill's problem is different though.  Even if the scene starts
at 20 feet, there is plenty of depth with a regular stereo
camera.  Bill is recording normal stereo scenes with a wider
base.  I can see how this becomes a problem after a while.

George