[MF3D.FORUM:1100] Re: Miniaturization and familiarity

["Bill Glickman" <bglick@xxxxxxxx>]

Paul

> Regarding the forest scene relative to the cars: please
> note, trees come in all different sizes.  Sounds obvious
> but think about the implications...

Yep, I'm with ya...


> I have an MF 3D slightly hyper image of an Austin area
> scene.  Sometimes I ask people if they notice anything
> odd or different about it.  Not everyone does.  But there
> is a tree in the scene that is perhaps 30 ft tall, that
> looks about 6 ft tall in the stereo viewer.  When I
> pointed that out to one person who hadn't noticed the
> hyper effect, her response was "well I'm from West Texas
> and that's the size trees are out there; it's so dry
> they don't get any bigger than that, so I just thought
> that was the size the tree was!  It looked perfectly
> normal to me."

     Very good point... but you shoot at 65mm base all the time, why are you
experiencing tiny stuff at all?


>
> So your friends who had not seen the particular forest
> you shot may not have immediately realized that the
> trees appeared smaller than they are in reality, and so
> did not comment.  But most people who saw the scene and
> the slide would be able to tell the difference.  When
> you say the scene looks normal to you, it says two things
> to me:  1) you are not sensitive to the miniaturization
> effect; and

         To some extent I am, but only a few slides I saw any effect of
this...

2) you seem not to notice, or have at least
> failed to mention, the fact that your MF stereo slide has
> binocular disparity extending to a much greater distance
> than you could have possibly seen when you were looking
> at the forest itself.

        There is something in this that sounds interesting, but I can not
quite get it out...can you try to explain this again, you may be on to
something.... binocular disparity...sounds interesting, what is it?

Bill G




>
> Paul Talbot
>