Computer vs. photographic 3-d, etc. Message-ID: <199601272335.SAA21003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

[fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis) To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Yiing Lin,

I have done a good amount of scientific 3-d, print work, computer work, etc. All these forms of 3-d are extremely interesting, educational and useful but not nearly as powerful, IMO, as good 3-d *photography*. You can experience this either in a viewer or projection. Once you have gone through a great 3-d projection then you know what 3-d is all about. One of the best places to experiece this are the NSA conventions. My first convention was in 1988 in Cincinnati when I was just starting in 3-d. I have the best memories from it than any other convention. The combination of good photography and 3-d is a most inspiring sight for me. 

Regarding the problem of sharing computer or other forms of 3-d, my solution is to copy them in slide film and use a good slide viewer. This can be done with most 3-d images, including old stereo views. Some people say that stereo views can be made to look better in a slide form, by mounting them for correct stereo window, etc. John Vala and his coworker have started bringing computer-generated 3-d images in the meetings in Detroit. They look good in projection (to the point of winning awards over regular pictures). My thesis is loaded with stereo pairs, from SEM images to experimental setups. I am sure that very few people have seen them in 3-d. I basically do not care. If I want them to see them then I'll show them a slide. It's not easy to share 3-d images, but if you really want it, it can be done.


------------------------------