Re: Cardboarding

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

> William Carter  writes:
>I must then ask myself "Mr. Bill, wouldn't identical views which have NO 
>parallax actually BE of a cardboard cut out?" 
>
>At some point the angle of parallax can no longer resolve the third 
>dimension. Limited either by the the film resolution, the lens 
>resolution, or by the parallactic base. But, wouldn't this be a fluid 
>gradation? Wouldn't some Cyrano reveal his glory, full and gibbous, in a 
>3-D system dependent only upon resolution and parallax? 
>
>Is it because we're left without other depth clues, clues the hard wired 
>portions of our brains expect, which occasion us to see planes where 
>there are otherwise resolvable solids? If so, then what's so 
>significantly different about hollograms and SL3D that they don't have 
>this artifact? 

The point at which William quotes my message, I was using the example of
identical images which would be equivalent to a real cardboard cutout. This
is easy to do with any simple graphics program on a computer by copying an
image and placing the copyies side by side at a scale which can be
free-viewed. In a computer you can arrange multiple image copies and have a
3D scene full of flat pieces at different depths.

I'm sure it is a fluid gradation in 3D photography but the mind *reads*
clues from an image in a variety of ways and perhaps perceives a stronger
sense from some of them than others. The edges of an object provide the
strongest clues. Details within an image are less obvious and so are harder
to resolve. 

A hologram has a much higher resolution overall and usually has ample
parallax for most views. Anytime you provide adequately resolvable parallax,
your mind can interpret it. Cardboarding could be present in either
Holograms or SL3D, provided the requisite clues become too small to resolve
with the eyes.

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/


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