Re: John!!!

[P3D William Carter <wc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John B progenates:

>Bill,
>Before anyone does these experiments, what would you say your model 
>will predict... 

I seem to be flat lining today. 
Something seems Very Right about Pauls experiment:
> You now have a series of A-pairs taken with large aperture, and a
> series of B-pairs with small aperture.  The prediction is that
> you can find depth in some A-pairs that you can't find in the
> corresponding B-pairs.
But I haven't groked it yet.

Satori doesn't come. "... I do not think she will sing to me."

The Beck experiment seems straight forward. 
I need to have the particulars for der formula.
Also, "covering half the lens" needs to mean "half the aperture". 

I have a close up lens 1 : 0.85 with a slot cut at the aperture. It has a 
Nikon mount. Any one in the Bay Area want to try this experiment?

How I might have done it:

I would shoot the surface of some textured sphere. Golf ball, basket ball, 
medicine ball, Earth ball, egg. Pick one.
Next I would shoot with a zoom lens.

For the SL3-D part, I would fix the aperture stop so it wouldn't change with 
the focal length. Figure a median distance based on the lens' aperture and 
in accordance with the formula. And shoot the stereo pairs, keeping the 
image size the same through out.

Just for the heck of it, I would shoot a series of dual lens pairs around the 
~12' or so of arc it should be able to resolve.

Now I'm ready to show these little gems o-) 
I'd project them. I'd have them in no particular order, and I'd show as many 
"left for right" as I show "right for left"

Finally, I would show it to an audience, asking them to determine if the 
shape was concave or convex. Plot a graph for where they got it/didn't get 
it, and figure out what happened.

I think random dot stereograms favor dual lens systems and are not 
necessarily representative of the real world. I think the concave/vex surface 
provides a more meaningful "real world" experiment. 

Also, I would fill the audience with non-stereo types. I'd want the 98 pound 
weakling eye muscles, not the Charles Atlas eye muscles found on stereo 
types (or am I stereotyping?)

-- 
                     mailto:wc@xxxxxxxxxxxx
    37deg 39.09'N x 122deg 29.56'W x 90'MLLW







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