RE: Ask Dr. T, part II - Realism & Anaglyph

[P3D <PTWW@xxxxxxx>]

The discussion of anaglyphs by DrT and Dan Shelley has been informative.
But I don't understand this point Dan makes:

>The key there is "provided that a choice exists". In printed materials, 
>the anaglyph is the best way to reproduce a stereographic image. 

Do you meant "best" considering certain (unstated) constraints, or
simply the best possible quality?  I find the printed examples in
the "Photographing in 3D" booklet quite effective, although the size
is limited. (Note I did *not* say they are good as slides.)  Would the
extra "quantity" of a larger format anaglyph compensate for what I
presume is a loss of quality compared to these printed images?  Or are
there other factors I am not aware of going into your conclusion that
anaglyph is best for printed materials?

DrT, how would you compare Dan's anaglyph to the printed images in that
booklet?

Paul Talbot


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