Re: Rule-breaking

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

Paul Pascu replied:

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

It can most probably be codified to the extent that a majority of
viewers would find an image meeting the criteria acceptable.  There will
always be issues of personal taste such that *any* image, no matter how
many "rules" it conforms to, will be objectionable to someone.  The
ancient Romans put it well: Non gustibus disputandem est (There's no
arguing with taste).

>>I've also commented on how window violation
>>produces conflicting depth cues.  This is another viewer-comfort issue
>>as well as a "realism" issue.  

>These pionts all relate to "realism" which was part of the reason for my
>original post - duplication of reality doesn't have to be the only game in
>town.  Some prefer it and that's fine.  But we aren't looking out a real
>window.  Of course there's a border to an image but it doesn't necessarily
>have to be a window that separates one from their 3D creation if the
>duplication of reality is not part of that creation.

No!  Viewer comfort is NOT a "realism" issue.  It's a psychological and
physiological consideration.  Conflicting depth cues BOTHER many
people, especially people NOT used to viewing large numbers of
stereoscopic images, the sort of people many of us are trying to reach
out to and interest in stereography.  As an artist, you can shoot darts
into your patrons' eyes, but to me it seems rather self-defeating.

Whether you like it or not, the border of a stereo image most definitely
IS a window.  You can ignore it, as many early stereographers did, out
of choice or ignorance; you can choose to use it as part of your composition,
as the "window rules" encourage one to do; and you can CHOOSE to
deliberately violate it, abuse it, whatever.  But you must understand it
in order to be able to MAKE those choices.  If you think Dali or
Picasso didn't learn the "rules" of perspective and representing reality
before willfully violating them, you're sadly mistaken.

>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 going *beyond* the existing.  It is built on the past,
either by extending it, or by recognizing errors and correcting them.
It sounds like you are only interested in trashing the past.  Arrogance
is assuming that as a neophyte, you already know more than those who
have been actively studying and writing in the field for decades.  I
still consider myself a neophyte, and the more I learn the more I
realize I still don't know.  There are people on this list who
embarass me with the depth of their knowlege.  I'm grateful they're
here.

>Thee point is the toe-in can be
>used - for those examples and possibly taken a step further.  They may
>reduce the "realism" that you may seek but that's your taste, not a
>universal rule.

No, the point is that toe-in introduces a distortion which, when taken
far enough, destroys the ability to fuse the image.  It is no longer a
stereo pair.  This isn't a matter of taste, it's a fact.  Rail against
it all you like.  Ya canna change the laws of physics, Cap'n.

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

You have stated that you want to be free to break all the rules.  I'm
simply trying to explain to you that SOME of the rules exist to keep
you from literally hurting people.  You can still break them, but most
people will not want to, or will not be able to, look at the results.
Darts in their eyes.

	-Greg W.


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2151
***************************
***************************
 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
 ***************************