Re: Hyper experience

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 02:49:48 +0000
>From: P3D  Dr. George A. Themelis writes:
>
>Larry Berlin writes:
>
>>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. 
>
>Sorry, but I disagree with this statement.  Hyperstereo at first is
>very appealing because it is a new visual experience, a novelty.
>Like any other novelty, it wears out.  The experienced stereo worker
>learns when to use hyperstereo and where.  The inexperienced worker
>can easily over-hyper-do-it, putting hyper in every shot.
>
>Hyperstereo has it's place in stereo, but not in every picture.
>Especially, not in "regular" scenes = scenes experienced and enjoyed
>with our eyes, like a walk in the part, scenes with people, etc.
>People photography is especially ortho-demanding.

*********  I both agree with you and disagree. Particularly I did NOT claim
that hyper should be used in every scene. Nor did I claim that all hypers
were good ones. Hyper is much more than a novelty and the opinion that
places it as a novelty is one based on a lack of experience with using it.
Perhaps this is because you work mostly in presentation modes in which
hypers tend to easily be too much, but the future of 3D imagery isn't in the
slide show, regardless of the importance and value of slide shows.

The problem with so called *regular* scenes is that many of them are
particularly the ones that seem exceptionally boring due to flatness. Again
I will remind you that this is often due to the method of presentation.
These ordinary shots are fine when projected and viewed under ideal
circumstances. Under more typical viewing situations, the available depth is
less than ideal. The bias against the use of hyper which develops out of the
projection environment is a limit that need not exist as a limitation.
Especially with newer presentation techniques capable of reaching far more
people than a slide show could ever manage.

Those who work largely with slides and projection and have a bias against
hyper anything are limiting not only their images but their own thinking and
creativity. They tend to try and identify hypers and immediately discard
them mentally before having a chance to view them in the mind frame in which
hypers exist at their best. If you can't put your mind into the right
interpretation mode you lose out. No surprise there. It's not the fault of
the image but in the interpretation of them.

>..........
>The 6" separation in my side-by-side Minolta X-700s is too much
>and excludes regular photography. ...............  I suspect
>that 3Discover workers are using twin SLRs that's why even
>normal scenery looks hyper.

******  You raise valid points within the scope of your experience. The
logical conclusion from the above paragraph is that a stereophotographer
needs to be flexible and have appropriate equipment for different
situations. This is far different from an attitude that hypers should be
avoided completely and denigrated whenever they are used.

>
>>The more I experience strictly ortho stereo images, the more I 
>>appreciate the greater information contained in hypers that are 
>>carefully done. 
>
>Who is shooting stereo for the information?  If you are a scientist
>an engineer, an investigator, I understand that.  I take SEM pairs
>with excessive parallax so I can make better measurements.  But in
>"real life" I pretend to be a photographer.  I want visual appeal,
>not information.  And I find many *ortho* views with less than
>optimum depth more visually appealing than hyper views.

*********  As a person who enjoys viewing stereo images of all types, even
the flat ones, WHATEVER  I SEE  IS INFORMATION. My experience of it is
subjective and personal. My mind or yours can only deal with image
information that is present in the image. If it isn't there it's hard to
see. Flat tending images have less information. This is not a scientific
collection of data but a process of ordinary viewing. Stereo images that
tend to appear flat, which from my experience is typical of 80% of images
taken with fixed lenses and not viewed under ideal projection conditions,
lack *depth information* for my eyes and mind to peruse and enjoy. A hyper
image has greater depth factors along with any other image information and
provides a richer visual experience. Hyper does not bother a person who is
familiar with what it is and makes the necessary adjustment to interpretation. 

I'm an artist in my approach to stereo imagery. It's the scientist with a
rigid and limited outlook that insists on absolute ortho-ness at all times.
I too want visual appeal and it is noticably lacking in most *ortho* images
UNLESS they are viewed under just the right circumstances. I seldom
encounter them under those conditions. So I am speaking of the more typical
experience which is different from your ideal or even my ideals. Under these
more typical conditions, the *average* stereo image is boring and lacks
visual appeal due to excessive flatness.

>
>Note that the viewing medium can make a different.  When I view
>slides in a stereo slide viewer I can accept even pictures that are
>practically flat.  These pictures, while they look good in the viewer
>they appear hopelessly flat in projection, in prints and in computer
>monitors.  I believe this is happening because viewing in a stereo
>slide viewer is a better simulation of "reality" than the other
>methods.  When reality is "diffused", depth needs to be amplified.

*****  Despite your heavy anti-hyper stance your last paragraph sums up
nicely WHY I said what I did about hypers. I see a closer correlation
between projecting and a slide viewer. Part of my point was precisely about
limitations in viewing mediums. I see hand held viewers as basically pretty
hopeless as a presentation medium for the long term. They are great for
personal enjoyment when available. For most and at most times they are
simply not available.

I continue to love even the *flat* stereo images, but I have noticed that
the slightly hyper images almost always seem far more interesting and
satisfying to explore. Perhaps this is mostly true for freeviewed images and
freeviewing has definite limitations. But freeviewing is more readily
available than any other method or circumstance and hypers tend to perform
better under those conditions.

Larry Berlin

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


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1855
***************************
***************************
 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
 ***************************