RE:The Latest Offense

[P3D Greg Marshall <greg.marshall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Larry Berlin writes:
>>Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 
>>From: P3D Greg Marshall  comments:
>>.................. Stereo audio is almost universally accepted
>>while stereo imaging is the domain of a few... how could you
>>describe us?  In both cases the argument goes that there are
>>two sensors (2 eyes, 2 ears), so two sources should be
>>adequate.  But clearly, in both cases, this argument is
>>wrong!  Let he who is without sin...

>Well, the use of two sources is still the ticket. Holograms may have
>infinitely many vantage points, but a person still only observes two at a
>time. Sound systems are different and can easily use more than two sources
>without confusing a listener. The eyes have a much narrower focus of
>attention. They can be confused by too many simultaneous inputs and they
>tend to ignore or treat as secondary much that is outside of the primary
>attention zone. The ear's sound detection is more omnidirectional or at
>least hemishperical in nature.

Yes there are differences between the auditory and visual systems with 
regard to "stereo" perception, but the visual system is, in some ways,
more demanding.  But we cannot ignore the fact (oops, maybe I should
avoid that word - but it's more than an opinion) that in both cases the
binary model is imperfect because people are not stationery.  A stereo
image does not behave "correctly" when the viewer moves, and neither
does a stereo audio recording.  Some people are not aware of this
while few could ignore the problem in stereo images, but in both cases
most everyone would agree that the reproduction is not the same (and
not as good) as the "live" experience.

I got at least 6 installments of the photo-3D mailing this morning and
don't have time to read it all, so I hope the above comments reply
suitably to any other replies on my posting.

Greg Marshall


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