Re: Depth, how much is too much?

[P3D John Bercovitz <bercov@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike (the question asker) K. responds to Dr. T:

>> Aesthetically, there is no reason to have this maximum amount in every 
>> darn stereo slide.  I recommend the conservative approach "less is better".

> You are saying that the ideal amount, therefore, is a 2D slide?  :-)

There are never any problems with excessive depth in a 2D photo.

>> recommended.  Mike and I were sitting in the last row which is the worst 
>> in terms of emphasizing the depth ("stretch").  In a viewer this picture 
>> might have been better for me.

> Should one "optimize" for the projectionist (at home, I'm "it" so
> that might not be a bad idea) rather than, say, the ortho-seat or
> maybe some compromise position?
>
> In other words, how should one handle the problem of ortho-seat vs
> projectionist-seat when one's slide is to be projected, and what does
> one do when one wants to use the slide in a hand-viewer as well?  I
> ask in a mathematical sense.  If 1.2 mm on-film deviation max is a
> starting point, what is the *ideal* on-film deviation that is
> optimal, and what is the on-film deviation variation that is
> equivalent to the different projection seats (so one knows how to
> optimize for the different seats)?

To optimize for different seats in the house, you change lenses on your
RBT.  Reducing on-film deviation only attenuates the symptoms; it does
nothing to correct the problem which is stretch, a perspective problem.

There is no ideal amount of on-film deviation (IMHO), just a maximum.  
The decision is aesthetic.  However, as you say, if you minimize it, 
you ain't got stereo.

John B


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