[MF3D.FORUM:1095] Re: Miniturization.

["Bill Glickman" <bglick@xxxxxxxx>]

Dr. T

> 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 to admit, this part is confusing to me.   Yes, I want to
record the scene as I see it.  However, it seems that when your near is not
very near, say at least 20 ft away, I seem to think you need that extra base
to record the depth.  When I shoot in a forrest at 1/15th, the depth looks
very very very real, not hyper at all, and even the people who screamed
miniature at my car scene, they did not notice it at all in the forest
scene.  So shooting at 1/15th, is to me, or others has not produced
reactions like, "I feel like a Gian viewing this".   As mentioned in a
previous post, yes when there is references to size, I can see these scenes
being more of a problem...but doesn't the forest shots prove that 1/15th is
not really hyper, but just plan true, or realistic?
I realize hyper is defined as greater than 65mm, but hopefully you get my
drift...I am not comparing this stuff to 500 ft bases...my stereo bar maxes
out at 18" seperation.   My forest shots with very wide base, 14" does not
make you feel like its exaggerated stereo or exagerated depth, just
perfectly real.... like you are standing in the scene, and that is what I
was trying to accomplish...

       But all the shots,  that were commented as miniture all had
identifiable subjects in them, buildings, old wagons, cars, etc.     I will
continue this research to find out if anyone comments on miniture effect
with no identifiable reference objects in them... maybe the key is to use a
very small base in these situations, and the 1/15th when you don't have
reference subjects in the scene?  Possibly sticking to 1/30th would be a
more conservative approach and avoid this problem?   Yeah?


> 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.

        The film was Velvia, the chromes was perfectly exposed, the viewer
was a Saturn from Alan... I assume this is top notch stuff...so what exactly
does this conclude, you lost me?

> 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.

              The only problem I have with this..... when shooting scenes
that have subjects from 30ft to 500ft.... wouldn't a 65mm base produce very
little stereo effect...almost as if you were looking at 2d slides in a
viewer...of course no one would complain because if its good film and a good
chrome with a good viewer, then it creates a nice view, not neccessarily a
strong depth scene, or a scene that makes people say, I feel like I am
standing in there.  Am I off base here?

Bill G




>
> George
>