3-D Prints vs. Slides (5)

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have two problems with prints and stereo images in a screen.  First there 
is no standard way of viewing them.  I like freeviewing and that's what I 
use to look at stereo pairs in Stereo World.  It's exiting to see a 3-d 
image jumping out of a flat page or screen.  However, there are is a 
problem with freeviewing.  The effective "focal length" is too long 
(resulting in considerable "stretch") and, for the same reason, details 
cannot be seen.  Also, many people cannot freeview.  Using a viewer allows 
you to get closer to the image, but now you can see distracting problems 
like the screen in printed images or pixels in a digital image.  Also, many 
people cannot use a simple (cheap plastic) viewer effectively and the 
images cannot be remounted for use with a better viewer. (I have yet to
find a person who cannot see a 3-d slide in a slide viewer.)

One viewer that I like is the View Magic.  The reason that I like it is the 
same reason that I like free viewing.  You are far away from the image and 
distracting details are not visible.  But in many cases one does not have 
the flexibility to remount the prints for the over/under format.

The second problem that I have with prints is that viewing them with a 
print viewer does not offer the same isolation as viewing slides in a slide 
viewer.  One can notice reflections, start wandering around and outside the 
boundaries of the image, etc.  In a slide viewer there is nowhere to go.  
The image is surrounded by a black area known as the "stereo window".  The 
stereo window exists also in prints but it is much more pronounced in 
slides because of the isolation/realism of the slide format and, IMO, the 
stereo window adds to the realism and the appeal of viewing.

So, to summarize, one of the reasons that I prefer the Realist-format over 
the print format is that the viewing/projecting options of the first are 
more appealing to me personally.

One strong point of working with 3-d prints is that one can always see the 
2-d image and then "be impressed" by the 3-d image.  Or, if they don't care 
about 3-d they can skip the 3-d part.  I am curious, has anyone ever been 
"disappointed" instead of "impressed" when jumping from 2-d to 3-d?  Maybe 
I am the only one, but here is what happens occasionally:  I see a very 
good 2-d image and I like it.  I look forward to seeing it in 3-d and all 
of a sudden I notice problems like this object/person is too close in the 
the foreground or that there is big gap in space between object/person B 
and C, etc.  There are cases were I have liked what I saw in 2-d better 
than 3-d and I come to question if the image should have been even captured 
in 3d.  So the 2d/3d strength of prints is a mixed blessing for me.  In 
slide format you are usually thrown directly into 3d and you don't have 
the chance to compare things.

Don't get me wrong... I collect stereo views and I find them fascinating.  
But when it comes to my personal photography I prefer the slide format and, 
to be more specific, the Realist-slide format.  I am not only open to 
discussion but will welcome opinions from the other side... I know that 
there is a strong print movement in 3-d and would like to hear some of the 
reasons that people have chosen prints instead of slides.

More to come up:  What is the future for the Realist format? ...

--
Please note my new email address: DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply to this address as I am trying to shift all my correspondence there!


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