Re: Is hyper more natural than hypo?

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> > Dr T. writes:
> >
> > Assuming I record a familiar scene with half (hypo) and twice (hyper) the
> > normal interocular distance.  What is more likely an observer to
> > characterize as unusual (unatural?) the hypo or hyper?

Mike K. responds:
> I suspect it would depend upon the distance of the subject.  Clearly, if
> the subject is at infinity (like a Grand Canyon far-rim shot) both ways
> will look identical.  With a close-up, the hypo would look better when
> subject distance happens to be at approximately the 1/30 rule (etc).
> Other images (probably with only medium distant subjects) may have the hyper
> looking more natural.  People's sense of natural are different too.

Consider this: your ordinary flat photo is the ultimate hypo-stereo shot!
Interocular: 0mm!

Even when presented to both eyes (binocularly), such an image has no depth,
but most people are very used to viewing such images.  So I postulate that
hypos are likely to seem more "natural" than hypers for an "average" shot
(neither a macro nor distant scenic, for which Mike's analysis would
seem to cover it), for most people.  (In point of fact, a flat photo is
as "unnatural" as a hyperstereo as far as normal human vision is concerned,
but I think most people are used to flat photos.  Also, we can cover one
eye to get the ultimate "hypo"; I don't know anyone who can spread their
eyes apart to get a "hyper", the Freeviewer's Assistant notwithstanding.)

I've recently seen the most extreme hyper-stereo I've ever seen; it is
a stereoview of Boston taken from an airplane.  The buildings appear
like they are about 3 inches tall; it truly looks liliputian.  I
definitely characterize that as "unnatural".

	-Greg W.


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