[MF3D.FORUM:1110] Re: Miniturization.

[Alan Lewis <3-d@xxxxxxxx>]

Bill Glickman wrote:
> 
> > 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?

>          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?

I never really thought about it the way you are, so I don't have any
educated answers for you. 

My feeling is that using different lenses would not change the immersive
feeling in the image if you are using the same viewer.  I feel that the
immersive feel is totally related to the viewing device, not so much the
cameras and technique (except to get a good image).

But of course I think we are still talking about two different
definitions of "immersive feeling".

I think you relate it to the depth in a scene (how far back the 3d
effect goes).  
I believe it is the feeling of open space around you when looking into
the viewer.  Almost like there is no stereo window at all, so no
reference point for the beginning and end of the 3d image.  Immersive
feeling to me includes the vertical element too.  Horizontal images do
not feel immersive to me.


>         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...

That's pretty much my definition too.  But I also judge how easily a
non-stereo person can fuse the image.

> 
> > 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 have a really nice hyper shot of Cadillac Ranch that is causing me
mounting problems because in the foreground is a dirt road with small
pebbles that are just too close to the camera for the stereo base I
choose.  They are probably 15 feet away and still cause fusing problems.
I should have used less camera shift because I couldn't frame the shot
without those pebbles in it. Those pebbles almost ruin the picture even
though the main subject matter turned out great.

I think anything, blade of grass or any other small object, can cause a
problem when using increased camera base.

I can't help you with estimating what distances to consider "close", I
don't use any math formulas when taking stereo pictures so I can't put a
calculated number to it.


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