response, part 1

[P3D Allan Woods <allanwx@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>> 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."
>
>Really?

Yes.

>> 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?

>But to answer this latest of your questions first, I don't know why you 
>can't go from closeup to infinity in one stereo pair. 

I'll venture that the reason you "cannot" do this illustrates, to an
extreme degree, the very point I have been making about merging the
stereo images.

The same difficulty one has dealing with the near-infinity portions
of the above mentioned image is the same problem which exists to a
lessened degree when we let our eyes wander about in any "Realist"
stereo pair.

There is no single point of inflection at which the difficulty
suddenly exists - it is a continuum.

To put it in quasi-quatified terms, the discomfort is the ratio
of merge-disparity and time spent viewing ("viewing" fatigue).

  |x                           o
  |   x                    o
  |      x              o
  |         x         o
  |            x    o
  |              x 
  |           o    x
  |        o         x
  |      o             x
  |    o                x
  |  o                   x
  |o                      x
  |___________________________________

The more difficult it is to fuse/view, the less time passes
before we feel discomfort.

>
>OK, now you have to think about my questions; fair's fair.
>
>The Songer device has a large black vertical line going through its filter.

Well, here all I can say is "No, it does not."
>
>3) What would happen if you took a shot with the red half of the lens
>   and then advanced the film and took a shot with the blue half of
>   the lens and then merged the two shots using a computer?

What would happen if you did the above with an ordinary lense that
had no filters?  Would you make a 2-D stereo pair?

>4) What would happen if you instead put the two shots in a viewer and
>   merged the two shots with your two eyes?

What would happen if you cut a dollar bill in half and put it back
together?  Would you have a $2.00 bill?
>
>What I'm driving at here is, where do you think it's no longer SL3D and
>has instead become separated pairs?
>
What _I'm_ driving at here is that the intent, design and operation
of the invention is closely tied to the way it works.  It is a simple
modification made to standard equipment to encode depth information
using coloured filters and carrying that depth information in the
de-focused areas of the image.

It becomes separated pairs when you make gross changes in the design
of the system - (something which, so far, Paul Kline has not been
able to succeed in doing!)

When does an Angel Food cake become a souffle?  After all, they are
both. more or less, combinations of the same ingredients.

And again, I say verily unto you all, we are NOT living Realist
Cameras as we wander through and look at life!

Responses welcome.
(especially before the medication wears off or starts to work)

allanwx@xxxxxxxxxx



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