Re: Window reversal

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 00:58:58 -0500
>From: P3D Paul Pascu  <pascu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re:  Window reversal

>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?  
>>...
>>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.

OK, here's some information:
 - "freezing" motion
 - hyperstereos
 - hypostereos
 - pseudostereo
 - mounting other than to the stereo window
 - use of other than orthostereo geometry.
 - tricks involving reflective and transmissive objects
 - deliberate defocus
 - defocus of one image
 - time exposures of moving subjects

>>>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.

Your posts included several comments of this sort:

  "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."

And there were even stronger statements in your posts about having to obey
the rules. Just a few weeks ago you were asking what a stereo window is -
I realize it takes a while to learn this stuff, and try to make allowances,
but I felt that your statements were quite condescending. OF COURSE the
rules are constantly being discussed and re-evaluated, with continual
adjustments and occasional breakthroughs and exceptions.

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

But stereo photography is a combination of personal taste and "human factors"
("ergonomics"). Stereo viewing contains far more "hooks" into the human
visual system, and while most parameters of the human visual system have
ranges rather than specific values, there are limits beyond which almost
none of the population fits. Most of the people on this list think in terms
of eventually showing their work to someone else, and if other people can't
view them, or get headaches, they will consider their work less successful
than if other people could view and enjoy them. Therefore "the rules" (or
body of common practices) have been put together over time to increase the
probability that others will enjoy your work. Greg Wageman gave a very good
summary of the different kinds of rules, and the circumstances in which
there would be a reasonable hope of success in taking photos that break
some of the rules.

>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.  

I read all your posts from recent weeks before sending that. I didn't come
across anything in your references to "the rules" to indicate that you thought
they served any purpose other than to achieve greater realism. That's not the
case - some of them are for safety, some of them are to improve viewability,
and some are for greater realism (there is not universal agreement, especially
in the latter class). Viewability is highly valued in stereo photos, by almost
everyone.

>>Attempting stereo viewing of certain images can physically damage a certain
>>percentage of the population. 

>And what damage is that?

A fair question, which I will attempt to address in a separate message.

>Your statements might be more useful if you justified them.

Actually, writing courses indicate that single-column text is more readable
if you leave the right hand margin jagged...  :-)
... OK, the main problem is what I stated earlier - the answer to your
questions is a vast topic - it would probably take several hundred pages
to do a reasonable job of explaining and justifying it all. If you would be
willing to break up your questions into more manageable pieces, it might
be easier to answer them properly.

John R


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