Re: Choosing ortho or hyper

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 18:52:14 -0500
>From: P3D  Paul Talbot writes:
>..................................... in viewing
>those I felt that some of the grandeur of the scenes was lost, possibly
>due to the shrinking effect.  My opinion only.  

******  This is an example of typical thinking. Most persons who I know that
specifically enjoy hyper shots think in terms of themselves and their
vantage point increasing, rather than in terms of a shrinkage of the image.
Put yourself into the scene and you get more out of viewing it. The
*Grandeur* of the scene is enhanced if my virtual reality is such that I
become a *giant* standing on the edge of a mighty ditch that I know is a
canyon to the ordinary. The realization of proper scale puts everything into
perspective and works to advantage in the oveall effect. If I give up the
virtual aspect of the experience, I would be misinterpreting it, and it may
lose some of it's grandeur. I prefer to have the choice where it's practical
to do so.

>But if we must choose, I
>would vote for ortho because of the realism (even though I am not of the
>school that says all stereophotography has to have maximum realism.)

******  At least with freeviewed images, the ortho scene typically has an
infinity that is extremely fixed rather close to the prime subject matter.
Everything in the image tends to flatten closer and closer to this infinity
point often placing rather near subjects like a hill or house at almost the
same distance as infinity itself. However real the closest subjects may be,
it just isn't natural for infinity to be *just behind the apple tree*.
Reality has infinity stretching off to forever and it doesn't look that way
at all unless you are viewing the image in exactly the right way. What's
great for a hand viewer or projection often isn't real at all when presented
as a freeviewable image. But please continue to post these images as I
prefer them to 2D ones any day!!!! And I enjoy variety!

My vote is for both ortho and hyper with a preference for composited images
in which orthoness doesn't diminish the detail available to my eyes. This is
difficult to do totally within the camera in a single shot when the total
depth available exceeds the ideal range of a particular system. There are
too many tradeoffs. Only post processing and careful planning can provide
the optimum viewing experience where things appear normal yet full of
detail, depth and roundness. I like to see that the other side of the Grand
Canyon is closer than the horizon. That's how reality feels. When the
distance looks like a wall instead of the horizon, it's just not *ortho*
enough in that specific viewing context.

What motivates this discussion (at least for me) isn't a gripe with ortho or
even a preference for hyper, it's dealing with the feeling I so often get
where I'm left mentally grasping for the cameras to move them just a bit
farther apart for a better perspective. Note that I DID ENJOY the projected
stereo images at Expo2, many of which would have appeared somewhat flat if
presented in a freeviewable form. Viewing projected images is too rare an
experience even if I were able to get to a regular club meeting. I certainly
don't have room or conditions which would allow easy projection at home in
the traditional sense.

It is possible that LCS viewing systems provide a better viewing geometry
(than freeviewing) along with making 3D more accessible to many. I may find
fewer times when I want to grab the camera through the photo. I need to do a
lot more exploration of different types of images with this technology. My
concern with this topic includes the many who for now have their greatest
access to 3D through freeviewable images. Things are changing rapidly tho...

Larry Berlin

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


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