Re: Frozen in time.

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sun, 24 Nov 96 10:35:36 PST
>From: P3D Michael Kersenbrock writes:
>>(Gabriel quoted)
>> 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.

****************  As if the mind can't find an appropriate association to
understand frozen motion? This is easier than learning HTML programming!

>
>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.
>

*************  It seems that the interpretation of *realism is a very
personal and variable term. Ferwerda had his own set of preferrences based
on observation and his own exposure to media that influenced his
recommendations.  What is *realistic* is relative to the creative thought of
the photographer too. All kinds of special effects can be used and not just
for the purpose of tricking you into saying *Wow!* Frequently they are used
to capture and express some small detail otherwise ignored or unseen. They
may be unnatural in a sense but you have to be doing something pretty
abstract to get completely away from some kind of valid interpretation of
*natural*. After all, the most natural image imaginable is still an
abstraction of the reality that formed it's origin.

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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