Re: Frozen in time.

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Mike I think we are in agreement on the frozen issue. In your original
> post you mention it is only a guideline which I agree with. What I took
> issue with was Ferwerdas emphases that freezing motion would spoil the 
> realism of a 3D pic. He then recommends that people be in passive poses.

But isn't his assertion true in some respect?  Is a 3D picture of freezing
motion "realistic" ?  Technically, it is realistic because that 
image at that instant in time did  occur.  However, that realistic moment was
part of a dynamic sequence of images that people see, and the 3D photo we 
take is a static one. So although technically realistic, it might not really 
be considered that if dynamics are thought significant.  An image in a
realist viewer of someone doing something "odd" (or hanging in the air) for a 
sustained period of time isn't one that one sees in real-life, so dynamically
it isn't realistic.

That said, my real question on the subject is about the assumption
being made that lack of realism is bad.  This is inferred by a casual
interpretation of Ferwerda's "rule for realism".  He says that "for realism
do this".  One may infer that NOT doing "that" (which creates a 
non-realistic image) is bad, even if not necessarily stated explicitly.

Perhaps Ferwerda's guideline is stronger for those who want realism and who
define realism in a dynamic sense?

Mike K.


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