Hyper experience

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 15:21:19 -0500
>From: P3D , Dan Shelley quotes and comments  ...............
>And from another: (re: 3Discover images)
>
>>Most of these can probably be tolerated 
>>by the average user.  (Many of us 
>>more experienced with stereo will likely
>>get tired of the excessive use of 
>>hyper-stereo, though.)
>
>So, you are not thrilled with their product, that is your prerogative. 
>My question to you is `Why insult those who do?' I happen to enjoy the 
>hyper stereo used in the slides I have seen so far, they provide a 
>unique  perspective (beyond simple 3D) of the subject. There is 
>something to be said for seeing something in a 3D view that you CAN NOT 
>see in real life. IMHO that makes for a better product! =)
>

I haven't seen the 3Discover yet but hope to in the future. However, to say
that those with *experience with stereo* will tire of hyper stereo is kind
of misplaced. It's inexperience with stereo that makes hypers unnacceptable,
not experience. Those who choose to think it's somehow unnatural and
undesirable have very little real experience with it by choice and
preference. The *3D inexperienced* may not notice a difference or will
instinctively either like it or not (my impression is that most like it).
The *hyper experienced* will understand what it is and be less bothered by
it's supposed distortions. The more I experience strictly ortho stereo
images, the more I appreciate the greater information contained in hypers
that are carefully done. 

The biggest problem with hypers seems to be the degree of exageration which
may become apparent in projected stereo images or in other specific viewing
geometries. This is a problem with scale in presentation or interpretation,
not with the basic idea of hyper images.

My problem with *Ortho* views is that they contain less information than I
would be aware of in real life situations. (The mind sees on the basis of a
continuum over time and position, usually not the flash of an instant). So
many of them look and feel rather flat (one could argue poor composition
with the subject too far from a fixed base camera). They often remind me of
the flattened relief sculptures used to decorate architectural buildings.
The depth is represented but much flatter than reality (maybe not the case
if these same images were projected and still better than 2D images). Hypers
provide more information which tends to counteract the limits of the medium
itself for a more detailed representation. 

The distortions, when present, are easily filtered out by the process of
virtual interpretation. Mentally place your eyes where the cameras were
located and let the information *sink in* as if this was your actual vision.
It's easier to flatten one's inner interpretation than it is to expand depth
information which is barely visible. Those who dislike hypers may have
problems with this visualization step. When such images (good ones) are
interpreted correctly they are far richer than many ortho images. Hypers
afford the ability to move your virtual eyes outside the physical confines
of the human skull, this is an advantage. Think *larger head and improved
viewing perspective* rather than *shrunken image reconstruction*.  :-)

Larry Berlin

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


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1853
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe sell-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************