Layered Depth vs. Full Depth

[P3D <PTWW@xxxxxxx>]

>Alexa Smith writes

>>http://www.alphaville.com/FLICKER-3D.html
>>I think the address you are looking for is Alphaville's web site at:

And Gabriel exclaims:

>That's it! It was driving me crazy trying to find the link, thanks.
>Well I went to it and yes indeed the eagle 3D lenticular is there
>as I remembered.

>They mention that, EAGLE 3-D PICTURE 10.5"x13" New prints from '60s
>negatives. Color photo of eagle. Sharp detail and depth, $14.95 each

I finally made it to their web site also, and except for some strange
black marks in the sky of their on-line thumbnail of the image, it
does appear to be the same as the one I found.  The one they call
"parrots" also appears to be the same as the other one I saw at the
flea market.  But based on what I saw, I would have to argue with
their description of "great depth" in the "parrot" photo. 

Gabriel also valiantly attempts to educate this lent newbie:

>The picture has nice stereo 
>depth but the dog looks kind of flat (cut-out cardboard) but after
>closer examination you can tell it's not in this particular case. One
>way to tell, is to rotate the left and right side of the lenticular
>back and forth. You'll more readily see any changes of perspective in
>the scene (not the boundarys of the scene but within the scene)
>while rotating within the area of the plane in question. Those changes
>in perspectives means it full depth or can also be more layered depths!
>If not then the conclusion might be it's indeed a cutout or poor resolution.

I am sure the macaws were real, not cutouts, but they don't exhibit very
much roundness, and the 6 at two different background layers are probably
100% flat.  I'm not clear from the discussion so far, however, what
causes the difference between layered depth and full depth.  Is it
determined by the equipment used to capture the image, or by the printing
process?  Is it possible that with the photo of the macaws they decided
to produce a full-depth image from the negatives that were originally
used to produce what I am guessing was only layered depth?  Of course
we can't rule out the possibility that my guess is all-wrong in the first
place...

Paul Talbot, who obviously needs to see and read a lot more about lents!


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