Re: Computer 3d? Not yet for me...

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:17:37 -0500
>From: "P3D Dr. George A. Themelis" <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Computer 3d?  Not yet for me...

>...2) I find computer 3d a non-satisfying experience.  

>1. Inconvenience in loading 3d images.
>3. Loss of image quality.
>3. Limited or unacceptable viewing methods.

>...We are using fast computers and are used to programs that run fast.  

This is a common problem, usually caused by upgrading the hardware while
running the same old software. The newer versions of the software are
designed to take full advantage of the enhanced capabilities of your
hardware (faster processing, larger disk capacity, etc.), and will therefore
not run at that frantic pace which is so annoying to the users. (Take my
Telnet/VT-100 emulation under Windows, for instance - even though it's
running on a 486, it scrolls much slower than the DOS version on my 286,
so now I don't have to worry about text zipping by too fast to read.
True, the text in the window is smaller and harder to read, but as soon as
I get a 21" display, it will look every bit as good as the 14" EGA display
on my 286. ;-)  ;-)  ;-)

>The only thing left in the image (and possibly amplified) is the stereo 
>effect.  That excludes good photography but opens new possibilities, 
>like computer images, etc., etc.  There is room for good work here.  But 
>it is a subdivision of stereo photography.  Stereo photography for me is 
>more than stereo effect.  Much more.  Take Erlys' "Dreamers" for 
>example.  This is an image based not on stereo effect but on good 
>photography.  Lighting.  Mood.  As computer 3d it would be a total 
>disaster.  

I would like to amplify the point that you make further on - that some
images are better for display on a computer than others. It's true that
most computer displays have lower resolution than Realist slides (for
instance), but there are many other ways in which the characteristics
do not match. "Lighting", "Mood", etc. can be conveyed in a computer
display, but the techniques are different from what would be optimum
for a slide photograph. I've seen some very good hand-created work on
displays that were much more primitive than what's commonly available
today. As time goes on, I would expect the photographic crowd to get a
better feel for how to optimally manipulate computer images for display
of photographic 3D.

That's not to say that the ideal approach will necessarily ever be to
scan in a Realist slide. Back when we had that four or five megabyte
discussion on the list on the topic of "what is art?", I was tempted to
note that people who judge art almost always give "bonus points" if the
art form is poorly adapted to the medium. Some painters strive for
"photorealism", while photographers try all manner of techniques to degrade
the photographic quality of their images, and one of the biggest current fads
in computer graphics/animation is to find ways to make it look sloppy and
hand-drawn. Scanning in slides may be a comparable mismatch for the true
3D photographic capability of computer displays.

(Nevertheless, I greatly appreciate the current presence of these scanned
3D photographs on web pages, because they represent a way to quickly
distribute fairly good quality 3D images to large numbers of people.)

>What got me into 3d, and still holds me captive, is the 
>realism of good stereo photography viewed in a good viewer.  Crossing my 
>eyes to view 3d images in a computer monitor holds no realism.  It is an 
>interesting (at best) but not really satisfying experience.

There's no disputing a person's personal preference for method of viewing,
of course. I find cross-viewing of large images to be somewhat of a nuisance,
but it doesn't really take away from the realism for me. What I do find hard
to free-view are those large parallel-view pairs.

Realism is fine, but I also tremendously enjoy stereo images that let me
see things that I wouldn't be able to see in "real life" - for instance
3D macro photographs, and hyperstereos of fireworks. I just got back some
spectacular stereo photos of rapidly moving water - they look like nothing
ever seen by the naked eye. (I'm considering trying to scan one or two -
that would give other people a chance to look at them.)

>I think we are still at the stage where a good 2D picture is usually more 
>effective than a 3d picture given the way 3d images are presented and 
>viewed today.

Most people would say the same about photography in general. :-)
But for both traditional photography and computer display, there are plenty
of "special cases" for which the 3D is more effective.

>Good computer stereo photography will work for me only if computer 
>viewing approaches the quality of stereo projection.  Note:  I said 
>approach, not match.  This means larger, higher resolution, images, 
>viewed with rapidly (no flickering, please) alternating R & L.  Images 
>should be loaded in seconds, not minutes, with the click of a button.  
>We are far from having this technology available and affordable.

If the psychological factor of sitting there waiting for an image is
significant, help is available right now - there are programs which will
follow instructions to perform net accesses while you're away.

>If I ever make a home page, I will have information and 2D images of 
>some of my products and services.  There will be a section with examples
>of my 3d work.  A few images at best.  These will be careful chosen to 
>work well in the computer.  They will not be my "best" images because my 
>pictures will be classified as "viewer" pictures (the best), "projection" 
>pictures and "computer" pictures (mainly stereo effect).

Sounds like a good plan.

John R


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