Re: Window reversal

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 22:13:00 -0500
>From: P3D Paul Pascu  <pascu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re:  Window reversal

>Does that mean that there's only one right way to take stereo pictures and
>if you do it any differently it's simply wrong?  

No.

>My question is, doesn't anyone ever do anything different (other than changing
>the interocular distance), break the "rules" and make it work for them?  

Yes.

>If so, what?  If not, why not?  

You're asking for an enormous amount of information - far too much to fit
in a message to P3D. I suggest you read the "frequently asked questions" and
find a book on 3D photography as a starting point.

>I know one reason is to achieve a very realistic image.  I
>don't discount that motive.  It's great to be able to give someone the
>feeling that they are actually seeing the real thing.  

OK.

>Does anyone ever go
>for something completely different?  Why not give someone the feeling of
>actually seeing something or being somewhere that doesn't actually exist?

Certainly - lots of times.

>I'm not necessarily talking about anything incredible though it can be.  But
>it could be as simple as (off the top of my head) using a single SLR to take
>two consecutive images of a landscape that includes a plane in flight but
>because of the movement of the plane the result is that it looks like it's a
>small plane flying right in front of the observer rather than up in the sky.
>It doesn't depict reality but it could look real.

Sounds good. Why not try it and report back?

>I'm not saying realism should be abandoned, far from it.  I just find it odd
>that so many things are labeled as being wrong, something the "educated
>stereographers" wouldn't do, instead of being used in some way.  

If you're asking "are the rules stupid, and were they just thought up
foolishly or arbitrarily", the answer is no.

>[another message]
>Can it be codified or is it really a matter of personal taste and creativity?

"Personal taste" makes it sound like there are only a handful of people in
the world. If a scientifically conducted poll indicates that something
that happens to suit your taste will be hated by 99% of the population, then
it might be worthwhile to take that into account when planning to introduce
it to the public. It's not actually illegal to put salsa and honey on your
chocolate ice cream, and you might even like it, but you won't find it in
any popular cookbooks. Occasionally a cook (or 3D photographer) will come up
with a new "recipe" that really catches on, but that doesn't mean the previously
existing "cookbook" was silly or served no useful purpose.

>>To reiterate, you have to know *why* there are rules.  Once you know
>>this, you can decide intelligently if and when to break them.  You have
>>to realize that stereography has over a 100-year history.  Some quite
>>clever people have been thinking about these things for a long time.
>>...Still, sensibilities change, and where the only reason
>>for a rule is convention, this can be changed. :-)

>There have been many examples in history of deviations from accepted norms
>and some of these norms have existed longer than 100 years.  If we really
>thought that a 100 year history perfected a process, what would that do to
>progress.  If innovation is arrogance, so be it.

Innovation is seldom a matter of throwing out the existing practices - it's
usually more of a thoughtful reexamination of those practices and consideration
of how they might be modified to expand the realm of what's possible. That's
good - but I get the impression that you're asking us to do all the work
for you. I recommend that you do the homework to find out why those "rules"
are there, then you can see about pushing the envelope with greater awareness.

>>There is truth in this analogy (music); however, no matter what dissonances
>>one uses in composition, one can't damage the listener's ears, only
>>offend their artistic sensibilities.  Unfortunately due to the nature of
>>vision, a badly-mounted stereo *can* cause physical pain in the viewer.

>I never suggested that anyone should damage themselves.  For some, cross
>viewing is uncomfortable (and unnatural) but this doesn't make it wrong.

Attempting stereo viewing of certain images can physically damage a certain
percentage of the population. Some of the "rules" are designed to minimize that
risk. There are also recommended practices for people viewing images, to
reduce the risk of this happening. So if you start experimenting with breaking
the "rules" at random, I suggest you be careful when viewing the results.

John R


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2149
***************************
***************************
 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
 ***************************