Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1263

[P3D Ronald J Beck 840196 <rbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm sorry, but I must disagree somewhat with the statements below 
regarding movies "are 3D" because of the movement.  While movies have 
great movement and you do get a "sense of depth", you're relying on 
"learned" depth queues.  The greatest example of this is the New York City 
set they have at the Disney studios in Orlando.  This is a flat painting 
of a New York street corner and it "appears" as though two streets diverge 
at the corner and go on for about 1/2 mile.  This is a painting on a flat 
surface.  To the camera eye though, it appears as if you were really there!

However, a 3d photo rendition of this painting would make it obivous that 
it is a flat wall rather than a real street even though your mental queues 
are telling you that it appears to have depth.

Another example of this I recently saw was on "Bill Nye, the Science Guy" 
on PBS.  In one example, they were showing what looked like the corner of 
a box.  Bill placed a triangle on the box corner and it looked like he 
sliced the corner off the box.  Very perplexing until the camera moved and 
you could see that it was actually the "inside" corner of a box, not the 
outside.  Maybe a trivial example but very impressive to me as a lesson in 
perspective and "single eye viewing".

As to the revival of stereography and public acceptance, IMHO, when a 
manufacturer comes out with an inexpensive way for the general public to 
make and view 3D scenes, whether still or moving, 3D will see a comeback.  
I envision something similar to how Princess Leah was displayed by R2D2 in 
the movie Star Wars.  Eventually we will have something in our living 
rooms that will display a movie/show/whatever and we will be able to see 
the performer's back by walking to the back of the unit rather than 
sitting in front and having the entertainer turn around.

For now though, dual images, lenticular displays and shuttered glasses are 
gaining popularity and are a start at reviving the "3D craze"!

Which reminds me of another topic I've been interested in but haven't had 
the time to pursue.  Has anyone come up with some slides that demonstrate 
perspective?  For example, a photo of a plastic sports car in the 
foreground and people in the background.  As a flattie it looks like a 
real sports car with people next to it but when viewed in 3D the depth is 
apparent?  Or something where one object looks bigger than another when, 
in fact, they're the same size but different distances from the camera?  I 
think a set of photos exploiting the effects of perception and then having 
that effect altered when 3D viewing would be facinating.  And, I'll even 
put it on my list of things to do.

Enough rambling,
Ron


> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 96 09:11 PST
> From: P3D George Snowdon  <gsnowdon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 3d from movies
> Message-ID: <m0u4W5X-000AKYC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
>     I've already written about this, but my comments
> seem to have gone into limbo, with most of the rest of
> Digest 1261.  So here goes again.
>      It's ironic that we should be trying to make steregraphs
> out of movie frames, when IMHO it was the movies that wrecked
> still (stationary) 3d.
>      A movie _is_ three-dimensional.   The movement of the
> camera in traversing  -  or even in panning, because 
> the camera lens often moves left or right  -  shows the spacial
> relationship of various objects in the view.   Even a person
> who has sight in  only one eye can get a fairly good perception
> of 'depth' from a movie.


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