Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D
|
|
Notice |
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
|
|
Re: Pulfrich and Real vs. Artifial 3D
John W Roberts writes:
>I think Pulfrich *can be* "real" by your definition, provided that some
>very specific requirements are met:
> - the thing that's photographed is a real scene
> - the camera tracks at a uniform and "reasonable" rate, in a straight line
> - the camera is pointed perpendicular to the direction of motion
> - nothing in the scene moves.
>Under these conditions, any perceived depth is a function of the true
>depth in the scene.
I believe this is a precise statement of why Pulfrich is not (generally)
"real" - because very few scenes meet (or could meet) these
requirements.
Under these circumstances, only, Pulfrich is identical to "shift and
shoot"
stereo pairs.
The only important point I feel has been left out of this thread is that
it
is very easy to create "artificial" 3D because the brain is so willing,
in
most cases, to create the sense of depth perception. Simply removing
the reality of flatness in a 2D image (such as by temporal disparity) is
enough for most people. BUT (notice that's a big BUT), if the effect is
imperfect it is a far less enjoyable experience. I don't know how to
deal
with people who don't perceive depth in "normal" "real" 3D images, but
maybe we should just let people enjoy whatever 3D effects they can?
Greg Marshall
------------------------------
|