RE: George's Opinion...

[P3D Shelley, Dan <dshelley@xxxxxxxx>]

Dan Shelley here, up on the soapbox again:

George T. wrote something that bothered me. (George, to make sure you 
don't accuse me of misquoting you later, here is your quote.)

>Unfortunately, this feeling is not transferred
>well when freeviewing stereo cards or computer 
>images or anaglyphs, or lenticulars and I think 
>this is the difference between Paul and myself 
>one one side and Larry on the other, in the 
>discussion of hyperstereos.  Hyperstereos are 
>fun to do occassionally, but they are no 
>substitute for the realism of stereo photography, 
>in my opinion.

1. In my experience, I have found that it has been very easy to "move" 
people on an emotional level with some of my anaglyph prints, and with 
some simple lenticulars. JUST BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DO IT FOR YOU, THAT 
DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T DO... I would guess that in the past two 
months, Walgreen's has sold at least 15 Image Tech disposable cameras 
to people who were so moved by seeing themselves in a 3D lenticular 
print that I took of them, that they just had to go and document their 
family that way too. I would guess that at least one of these people 
will continue on and do more 3D work, possibly in slide format, or pair 
format...

2. Dr. T., you are right, you have hit on the main difference between 
you and Larry. Paul wrote about it very well in one of his previous 
posts. It is about how you share and view your 3D images. In the next 
few years, I will probably see many, many more of Larry's images via 
the web than the few images from Dr. T. shared via future Expo's for 
example. I'd rather have the Larry/Web option because I get to 
experience more 3D. It's not that I don't enjoy seeing a hundred or so 
slides every 2 years, but it's not readily available or convenient...

3. My confusion really comes in when I see that you lump a variety of 
"non-slide" format 3D with hyper stereo, and then imply that all of 
those things are not the same as "real" stereo photography. 

(Again, to not be accused of misquoting you, here it is: "but they are 
no substitute for the realism of stereo photography, in my opinion.")

Did you really mean to type that hyperstereo images are not real stereo 
photography? (and anaglyphs, and lenticulars, etc...) My take on the 
definition is roughly (and in simple terms) `3D created by two distinct 
images of the same subject taken from slightly different positions'. I 
believe all of these types fit the definition.

I just don't understand why so many "slide backing" messages have to 
cut at and be negative about other forms of 3D. Your's did that whether 
you intended it to or not. I don't remember reading many anaglyph or 
lenticular backing messages that said negative things about slides... 
They are DIFFERENT types of stereo photography, and each have merit. 
They also find different levels of acceptance amongst different people. 
That is life, and it makes it interesting! =)

My opinion: Stereo slides are fine as a presentation media choice, but 
they are not the highest/best/most elevated form of 3D, they are simply 
a flavor in the 3D diet. So are print pairs, loreo prints, lenticulars, 
anaglyphs, digital images, etc... Every one of these varieties 
stretches and grows the base of 3D artists/enthusiasts. Long live every 
kind of 3D imaginable! ;)

Back off the soapbox...

Dan Shelley
http://www.dddesign.com/3dbydan


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