Re: John!!!

[P3D Allan Woods <allanwx@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>
>...  Humans are just built with two eyes and that's how we see -
>even you and Bill.  Maybe Bill's system uses "circle of confusion"
>as the encoding path but people don't.


Similarly, cameras with two lenses have two lenses.  Cameras with
one lens have one lens.

But we are not talking about people's eyes, we are talking about
a photographic process which encodes depth information using data
contained in and encoded in a single image produced by a single
lens.

(And, we (i.e. people) do not rely solely on the two eye to perceive,
or think we perceive depth.  Unfortunately we are not that simple.)

That the encoded SL3D information is decoded so that our two eyes can
perceive the depth information does not make the whole thing a dual
lens system.

Believing it is a two lens system leads to tinkering with the
set-up in an effort to "improve" it by putting an opaque stripe
between the encoding filters, replacing the semi-circular filters
with circular apertures in an opaque semi-circle, and perhaps even
going so far as to saw the lens in two and moving the halves apart.

All this effort defeats and eliminates the principal of SL3D - and,
according to Bill's calculations, only reduces the resolving power
along the Z-axis.

Again, a lens will produce an "out-of-focus" image for things which
are closer or farther away from the "point" of focus.  SL3D encodes
this "out-of-focusness" so we can "see" it.  Close things appear
closer because the are "out-of-focus" in a way that is "different"
from things which are "out-of-focus" because they are farther away.
The encoding allows us to translate that into images which are
apparently shifted left-right so we can "see" the depth illusion.

Two lenses take two pictures from two different places.
One lens takes one piture from one place.

They are different.
One relies on parallax.
The other relies on "focus."

allanwx@xxxxxxxxxx


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