[MF3D.FORUM:1108] Re: Miniturization.

["Bill Glickman" <bglick@xxxxxxxx>]

Alan

     Thank you for the response

> For the scene mentioned above I feel the more normal stereo base of
> around 65 to 75mm would be better, you will get the 3d effect from the
> foreground object and the distant object will look normal (not much 3d
> effect).  This how we actually see something like this.
> There will not be any problem viewing a slide like this when using a
> normal stereo base.
>
        Well taken, understood, this will prevent a lot of these problems...

> You mention the "immersive" feel.  Are you using the larger stereo base
> of your cameras to accentuate the 3d effect, and are you defining this
> as the immersive feel?
>
> When I think of an immersive feel I think of having an image that is so
> large that I feel like it has no boundaries and I am standing right
> inside the scene.  I don't equate it with how much the 3d is accentuated
> by camera separation.  I feel these are two different effects.

         Great point, and good isolaiton of issues.  How does one increase
immersive feel?  Yes, I did mistankenly think max. 3d and the immersive feel
were one in the same....      Would slightly lower fl lenses in the viewer,
say 70mm increase the immersive feel of things?  I assume it would,  since
it would make the borders seem further away fromt he center of the image,
right?

> Are you trying to force as much 3d effect as possible out of every
> picture?  I would think this would produce images that are too hard to
> view comfortably.

        What exactly is your definition of uncomfortable?  Alan, I was
shooting, usually with the 1/20th rule, a compromise between 1/30 and
1/15th.    Only a few shots had this uncomfortable apperance, and only
slightly... assuming we mean the same thing by uncomfortable...my definition
is.... when putting the viewer up to you eyes, things don't work
immediately, you have to study the scene a bit to get all the 3d to fuse
perfectly...

> I've used hyper stereo base on cameras many times and I don't always get
> an image that I like.  It really only works in specific circumstances.
> I agree with George on this point; If there are any near objects at all
> then I would recommend a more normal stereo base and reserve the hyper
> base for distant only scenes.

        When you say "any near objects at all"  what is classified as
near...30ft, 10ft. etc... Is anything near, like some grass or a gravel road
or does it mean a 3d marker like a tree?   I am trying to get a better
understanding of when to go from normal stereo base to hyper.  I think this
is an excellent compromise.    When i do go hyper, do you reccomend 1/20th
as a safe bet?

Regards
Bill G



>
> --
> Alan Lewis
> mailto:3-d@xxxxxxxx
> http://members.home.net/3-d
> Serious viewers for Serious viewer's
> New stereo viewers & Stereo Wedding Photography
>