Re: Ortho and Hyperstereo

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>The classic 3-D Stereo definition of "Ortho" is that the viewed images,
>taken at the interocular of the observer, will be presented at the apparent
>size the observer would have experienced from the taking position.
>Except for those folks who have the same IPD as the lens spacing of the
>taking camera, the classic ideal is by definition unattainable.

Of course!  But who cares for the "philosophical" definition?  In practice 
deviations of 10% or more will not make a significant (=observable) 
difference.  But it will make a difference when the difference is 100%
or more and in certain subject it will be questionable.

>I *have* had good results with two to four times standard interocular
>for scenics with little foreground. 

As I said, I like effective hyperstereos.  One thing I do not like is 
shooting ordinary scenes (for example, people is rooms, etc.) with
twin SLRS with 2-3 times the interocular spacing.  These do not work
for me and my viewing systems.  I remember the VM set from the TV
show "Full House" (hey, I am a collector, for a good price I'll buy
anything!) had many ordinary scenes looking too hyper.  I just checked
"Blossom" (collector, remember?) and this is not too bad but still
unnecessary hyperstereoized.  I suppose the VM photographer is using
twin SLRs with increased separation?

How about hypostereos?  There ortho is not a choice.  But there is a 
choice regarding the amount of deviation built into them.

George Themelis


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