Re: SL3D some more

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.

This was explained in one of the books I read (I forget which
one) in this way:

The stereo camera's lens and the resulting images are not "replacing"
one's eyes, but are providing an environment for the eyes of the person
viewing the resultant images.

This is why the focus in the stereo picture is important.  An eye
replacer would only need to be in focus at the center of attention
(so to speak). However, to provide an "eye environment" it needs to
be in focus at any point that the eye looks.

With eyes in "reality", the image is in focus wherever the eyes are
looking -- and to provide the same environment at point of eye attention, 
a stereo photograph needs to be focussed everywhere.

Seems to be an easy way of looking at the "system" and understanding it.

It's an interesting concept that Allan presents that the stereo photograph
fails at proper representation because it is *not* out of focus at the
periphery of vision!


Mike K.


P.S. - One of the camera companies has a system that detects where the user's
       eye is pointed in the camera viewfinder.  If that technology is combined
       with an all-digital red-button viewer, it could defocus the periphery of
       vision dynamically as the eyes moved!  Another reason for all-digital 
       camera/viewer stereo systems!   :-)


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