Re: 20 feet

[P3D ron labbe <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>imho, if there's nothing closer than 20 feet, it's hardly worth a "stereo"
>>picture (assuming a standard stereo camera).
>
>I disagree :)... Pictures with little depth do not project well but they
>look very good in the viewer, provided that they are sharp.  Especially 
>pictures overview (from above) of a city or people or a subject with lots
>of detail or just pictures where the photography is good. 
>
>Now, if 20 feet is too far away for you, is 15 better?  Where is the limit
>that a "stereo" picture is worth capturing (assuming a standard stereo
>camera)?  My answer is a function of the subject first.
>
>-- George Themelis
>

I knew I should have laid off the keyboard! 
My point is that stereo is about parallax... at 20 feet or more it's
getting pretty thin. Sure, if I was in Africa and I saw a wild gorilla 20
(or 30!) feet away i'd "shoot" it- but I'd be MUCH HAPPIER with a portrait
at 5 feet (or CLOSER!?)

I've looked at/shot many thousands of stereo slides- the best (IMHO) I keep
in "A" and "B" collections... I doubt if any of these- what I consider the
best- have a subject at or greater than 20 feet. And I'm talking about
handviewing (I really don't generally like projection)!

I'm not trying to make a rule- it's just an opinion. The closer, the better!


ron

ron labbe/ studio 3D
30 glendale st maynard, ma 01754
ph 508 897-4221 mailto:ron@xxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.studio3d.com


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2068
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe sell-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************