Re: Window reversal

[P3D Paul Pascu <pascu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:42 PM 6/24/97 -0500, John W Roberts wrote:
>>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'm not asking for an enormous amount of information.  I'm asking for any
information.

>I suggest you read the "frequently asked questions" and
>find a book on 3D photography as a starting point.

I didn't even know there are FAQ's.

>>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.

No.  I'm not asking that at all.  I'm surprised you'd even glean that idea
from my post but I guess I shouldn't be too surprised considering the
condesending tone of your post.

>>[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. 

Show me the poll.  "Personal taste" means that different people have
different tastes, nothing more.

>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.

Show me the cookbook that says it can't be done.  I didn't say the previous
ideas were silly or served no purpose.  Maybe you should reread the post.
Do you recall:
        >>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.  

>>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 - 

Who said anything about throwing out existing practices?  Do you recall:
        >>I'm not saying realism should be abandoned, far from it. 

>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. 

Well you get the wrong impression.

>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.

You make some unjustified assumptions.

>>>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. 

And what damage is that?

>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.

Your statements might be more useful if you justified them.

Paul Pascu


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