Re: Is hyper more natural than hypo?

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>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.)

Greg, put a flat slide (two identical pictures) of a scene that should 
normally have plenty of depth, in your red button viewer.  Feels so weird!
It is not the same as converging both eyes in a single image or closing one
eye.  

Glad you mentioned the "Freeviewer's Assistant".  There are a number of
viewer with mirrors that can be placed in front of the eyes and increase the
interpupilary spacing.  But the original post brought the movement of
our heads (motion prallax?) as the main reason for hyper being more no
natural.

But let's not go to extremes.  The fact that we are familiar with flat 
images does not make us familiar with mild hypostereo, which makes things
look bigger.

I can usually recognize pictures taken with a Nimslo or a ISO Duplex (both
have reduced interocular spacing) and can also recognize hyperstereos with 
twin SLRS side-by-side (about 6" spacing), provided (in both cases) that I
am looking at a familiar scene with close-by objects.

So, the question still remains... Does motion parallax makes us more
familiar with hyperstereos, or not?  Are (mild) hyperstereos more natural
than (mild) hypostereos?

-- George Themelis


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