Re: Suggestion. (by Tronddd)

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>  How about making a Stereoscopic Quality scale, ranging from the 
>  lowest end of crossviews etc., to the higher end of high resolution
>  projected images.

First, let me correct and state that the projected images are not at the
high end of resolution!  As I have stated many times in the past (and 
have not been challenged yet!), you can see more details (sharpness, etc.) 
in a good & bright viewer than in projection.

>  The final information presented would help newbies orientate 
>  in the confusing world of 3D formats, and certainly amuse every 3D 
>  enthusiast.

Except for those whose favorite format is rated low.  The idea is 
not going to work for this simple reason.  I have stated in the past 
that not every 3D format is the same and have been accussed for my 
blind devotion to slide format as being superior to others.  People 
are certainly free to choose any format they like and for any reason
they want.  I can only say what I like and why I like it.  

Another problem with this suggestion is that within the same format
there is quality and quality.  As Dan Shelley mentioned recently, in 
the anaglyph format there is the potential for great quality.  Are we
going to put Dan's anaglyphs in a different scale than other anaglyphs?

Sorry, but for these reasons I do not want to be part of a discussion 
that rates stereoscopic images in tems of quality.  You can go ahead 
and propose your own scale ane let us be amused but don't expect any 
feedback from me.

Side opinion:  Instead of trying to rate 3D formats, we (3D enthusiasts) 
should try and do are best in terms of quality, within our chosen format 
(just like Dan is doing), especially if we want to show our work to 
others.  Newbies can see these results and decide for themselves.

George Realist Themelis


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