Re: SL3D some more

[P3D Allan Woods <allanwx@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'll think about your last message and repond later... but I
wanted to make a point about the notion that focus is of
paramount importance.

It is not.

The notion that two images somehow represent "what our eyes
really see" is wrong.

What our eyes "really see" if everything, except what we are
looking at, out of focus and not fused.  Keep your eyes on
ONE subject and try to look at the periphery.

The foreground and background only APPEAR in focus when we
look directly at them.  A "stereo" camera only looks at one
subject.

Deep "depth of field" is an optical phenomenon which shows
up (unnaturally) to an exagerated degree in photographs.

When we view a projected stereo pair and try to look at
the "foreground" and "background" objects (i.e. those
images which require us to "fuse" the images) we must
do something which is unnatural - i.e. focus our eyes
on the screen and cause them to converge somewhere else.

This same technique is used in "free-viewing" - and I
doubt anyone can sustain free-viewing very long before
their physiology rebels.

It is nice to see a stereo slide all in focus, but it
ain't easy to look at for very long - except for the
objects at the window plane which appear to be where
we are in fact looking, converging and focusing.

As I said before, stereo slides are impressive and generate
"oohs" and "ahhs" because there is something pronouncedly
abnormal and noticeable about the way they look.  They
exagerate the way we really see.

Once again, have your audience sit in front of a picture
window then open the drapes.  They will be presented with
"REAL" 3-D.  As close as you can get to the real thing -
yet, no one will say "Wow! Look at the depth!"

Again, expecting our entire field of vision to be in focus
is not the way we work, anatomically, physiologically...

It looks "good" in stereo pairs and comes at a cost, but
it is not the only way to make us think we are recreating
the illusion of depth.

Holograms are the only medium so far that do this correctly
because they actually recreate the paths of light in space.

Again, I am NOT saying stereo pairs are bad - just that they
are not "what we see with our eyes;" they are not "TRUE stereo;"
they are not the inspired word of our creator.  They are
just one of several ways to create an imperfect illusion.

Anyone reading this?

allanwx@xxxxxxxxxx


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