Re: Ortho and Hyperstereo

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 13:58:52 -0700
>From: P3D Sam Smith writes:
>...................
>>(Dr. T states:)
>>How about hypostereos?  There ortho is not a choice.  But there is a 
>>choice regarding the amount of deviation built into them.
>
>
>Well said George. I think one of the variables here is that most beginners
>and indeed some more experienced users have not developed a keen eye for
>recognizing the effects of a reduced/enlarged stereo base. It's like a jazz
>enthusiast who can pick out a Freddie Hubbard solo off the radio by not even
>knowing who the band is. It's a developed sense that can only come with time.
>
>In reality, those who have developed an eye for this have a distinct
>disadvantage, as slight deviations can be distracting. Those who don't see
>the difference just get to enjoy the view.
>

*Slight deviations...distracting*?

So the *experienced* with a predisposition against even slight deviations
from the flexible Ortho, narrowly defined, set themselves up to be
disappointed with the use of their overdeveloped eye..... It should be the
other way around. Even and especially the experienced can *just enjoy the
view*, if that is what they choose to do... and they will fully understand
the image (as opposed to beginners who may not). Recognition for purposes of
avoidance is different from recognition and make-use-of. Those who recognize
and point out hyper even in the slight cases of it are too absorbed in
disliking the existence of hyperness to be able to enjoy it for what it is.

Yes, you can literally *feel* hyperness. Even beginners can feel it. That's
part of it's attraction. A flavor of experience, a sensation like bubbles in
soda. What's ignored and forgotten, seemingly, is that hyper views are fully
normal. Put your face really close to any relatively small  object and you
have a hyper view. Anytime a person is interested in something and seeks a
better view of it, the general action is to place it closer to your eyes.
Ortho by definition is ortho only for a narrow region of experience.

The *developed sense* that comes with time, really comes with broad exposure
combined with an open mind. A closed mind can go on forever and still have a
prejudice get in the way of enjoyment. It happens all the time in all fields
of human endeavor. Our thinking patterns on a subject often subconsciously
set the whole stage for how we experience it. Thanks to cameras and hyper
photography we can have the *close-up* effect even from a distance or for
large objects. Pretty nifty. Think positive. Be willing to both explore
hyper in your stereophotography and to view other's explorations in it, or
not as you choose. We all probably have a favorite distance at which we
examine special objects. I doubt that it is a narrow range overall and it no
doubt differs with the size of the object or the condition of one's eyes.

Perspective is the hardest thing to teach art students. The first impulse is
to draw by trying to represent what we know of an object or scene instead of
drawing what it actually looks like from a given perspective. This
illustrates the basic level of visual functionality, previous knowledge
regarding shape is the dominant interpretation element. This is where hyper
views gain their *sensation*. They are different than the expected in some
degree. With experience the person can mold the presented information to
their inner mental image and experience something familiar yet out of the
ordinary. As the experienced 3D person gains experience with hypers and
comes to expect them on occasion, it begins to fit into the realm of the
familiar and understood, something not possible without stereo photography.

For those who only deal in 2D images, they miss out on the potential for
these experiences, ortho or hyper.

Maybe the problem is in the terminology. *Hyper* generally refers to
negative factors wherever it's used, hyper-tension, hyper-active, etc. We
need a better term for this as it relates to 3D, one without the negative
connotations. In that same category we need a better term for *pseudo
stereo* too. There is nothing *pseudo* about stereo whether it's viewed
normally or inside out. It's like the relationship of male and female.
Nature is full of both the inside and outside of shapes. It's not only not
*fake* (the actual meaning of pseudo) but it's fully natural as well, though
maybe unfamiliar in this context. That doesn't make it fake. 

What is the *correct* extension of a rubber band? ;-)

Larry Berlin

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


------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:33:25 -0600
Errors-To: 3d-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Originator: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
From: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Multiple recipients of list <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: PHOTO-3D digest 1863
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:   The Stereoscopic Image (Photo-3D) Mailing List