[MF3D.FORUM:1102] Re: Miniturization.

["Bill Glickman" <bglick@xxxxxxxx>]

George..

> 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.

      Ok, good to know, thanks...

> >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.

        Thank God, I am not totally loosing it!  :-)

> 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.

         FYI, all these shots used 80mm lenses.  But this strategy seems
like a great idea!  It would the problem with certain shots, but give the
immersive feel in the shots that have no reference subject..... now one last
issue though, my cameras do not due a 65mm base, 6" or 150mm is as close as
mine get, is that still OK considering nothing is closer than say 12 ft?
Just your opinion, I will experiment....

Bill G




>
> 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
>