Re: The rise and demise of 3D

[Peter Davis <pdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

>>>'Superior' is very subjective here...Yes, 3D is intruiging and more faithfully preserves the information in a scene, but it's also very inconvenient, expensive, and not universal (in the sense that everyone can see it).

>>...if you have seen *good* 3-d photography then you will know what I 
>>mean by "superior" and you will know that the slight (not "very") inconvenience and expense are well worth it. 

>I just wanted to add a comment on the "superior" nature of 3-D photography. While I don't disagree with the comment that 3-D "more faithfully preserves the information in a scene" (and I am an avid 3-D enthusiast), I don't think it's fair to broadly state that 3-D photography is superior to 2-D. To me, that's the same as saying color photography is obviously superior to black and white. If you look at 3-D photography as an art form, not just a means of gathering more accurate information about a scene, then it is neither superior nor gimmicky. Many beautiful photographs that are powerful in 2-D by using the relationships of shapes, light and depth of field would would lose impact if you added depth. Would all black and white photos be better if you added color?

If you look at photography as a way of recording and capturing information, then color photographs do indeed contain more information than black and white, and 3D photographs contain more information than 2D, albeit at a cost of twice the bandwidth. 

(I'm not saying this is not a stupid argument.) 

-pd

--------
Peter Davis	"Education is not the	617/873-4145
BBN Educational Technologies filling of a pail, but	FAX: 617/873-2455
70 Fawcett Street	the lighting of a fire."	pdavis@xxxxxxx
Cambridge, MA 02138	-- W. B. Yeats

URL: http://copernicus.bbn.com/people/PDavis/ 


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