Re: understanding...

[P3D Allan Woods <allanwx@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>I think of SL3D as just an analog of a two-lensed system, but an  
>anaglyphic one if you like, putting two images down in one locale 
>later to be decoded by color.  

"John, there you go again!"  -R. Reagan

I was merely trying to break the impossible-to-break blind faith
dogmatic belief that "stereo" means two separate, fully focused
images and that is the ONLY way to do stereo - AND that it not
just "represents" reality, it IS reality. And that no matter what
you do, it will be seen and interpreted as a corruption of the
"Realist" model.

I think what Paul Kline is making is a neat idea - but it is more
of the "two lenses making two separable images."  That is something
different from "SL3D."

Once again, the "illusion" of depth can be created by several
techniques.  None of them are perfect.  Each has a "best application."

John, rhetorically, why can't you take a stereo pair of something
close to the camera and include something in the frame which
is apparently at infinity? I can see that with my eyes and look
near, then far?

Is the horse dead again yet?

:-)

allanwx@xxxxxxxxxx


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