Re: Pulfrich effect

[P3D Marvin Jones <72657.3276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I'd be curious to know if anyone has ever researched whether the effect
> with Pulfrich gives you "real" stereo vision, or something that just
> looks like it? In case I'm not clear, what if you had a moving shot
> of a field of road signs at varying distances. Would Pulfrich actually
> give you a correct representation of the depth ordering of the signs, or
> something else?
>
I've never actually researched the matter, but it seems that the Pulfrich effect
would give you every bit as true a stereo representation as a pair photographed
with an SLR and the "rock and roll" method. It's basically the same thing--by
retarding the reaction time in one eye while viewing a moving shot of a field of
road signs, you are in effect seeing two separate "frames" of the film
simultaneously, and those frames are characterized by being photographed from
slightly different angles, just like two stills shot via "rock and roll." The
result in either case is true stereo, marred only by any movement in the subject
inconsistent with the lateral movement of the camera.


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