[MF3D.FORUM:1099] Re: Miniturization.

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

>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.  

My answer to this is "not necessarily".  Others might
disagree...  You still get a good amount of depth
with 65mm base even if your closest subject is 20
feet away.

>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?

For me, you are totally on base.

>My forest shots with very wide base, 14" does not
>make you feel like its exaggerated stereo or exaggerated depth, 
>just perfectly real.... like you are standing in the scene, 
>and that is what I was trying to accomplish...

I understand.  As you've noticed, only when they are
identifiable and very familiar objects (people, cars) whose
size is well-known, then people pick up the miniaturization
effect.  If these objects are not there (like the forest)
no one sees anything unusual.... Usually the effect of
the wider base is to pull things closer... it looks
as if you are closer to the scene.  That's why it 
generally helps to combine the larger base with longer
lenses.  Both help make it look as if you are closer.

So perhaps you should stick with 65mm base when shooting
familiar objects and increase the base in scenics and other
situations where the scale is not apparent.

George