Re: Why 3D

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

Julius Martin wrote:

>I've often thought about setting up a wall with two eye holes
>and a well lit stereoscopic view on the other side of the wall to demon-
>strate the idea. If there is nothing in the view that would move,
>I don't think anyone would be able to discern whether what was seen
>was real or a photograph.

Would that it were so!

In reality, there are many, many cues to give away the fact that
you would be looking at a photograph.  For one thing, as has been
mentioned on this list many times, a photograph is planar.  Our eyes
need only focus on one depth plane, and yet the entire scene is in
focus if the photograph itself is.  The eyes do not need to accomodate
as they converge and diverge.

Add to that the realities of dust, grain, reflectance, imperfect
optics, etc.  Some of these could be overcome, but you're still left
with the above.

Your idea *might* work with full-color holograms (which are rare
because of the difficulty of producing them).  I saw one of a doll,
mounted in a frame, where I would have sworn it was a real, solid
object in a box, except that it was obvious the "box" wasn't deep
enough to hold the object!  Stereoscopy is fun and can be realistic,
but it isn't THAT realistic, unfortunately.

	-Greg W.


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