Re: Frozen in time.

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Kersenbrock writes
>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.

Yes of course his assertion is correct in some respects, but as you and I
have mentioned, after awhile one gets used to a new way of communicating and
the strangeness wears off. There is no problem artistically to convey motion
in an image or to manipulate it to get a certain feeling. I am not saying it
shouldn't be done this way but rather don't let it be a limiting factor. BTW
no one has a problem of pictures in mid air of airplanes. 
 
>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?

Yes in that sense I would agree. If one wants to portray motion then his 
guidelines make sense. All I took issue with, was that alot of people would
have followed this guideline as a rather rigid one.

Gabriel


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