Re: Rule-breaking

[P3D Paul Pascu <pascu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 04:12 PM 6/25/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>>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, 

Bother as in they don't prefer it or do you mean bother on some
psychological or physiological way.  If that's what you mean, cite some
example that justifies this statement.

>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.

This is an unwarranted exaggeration of anything that I suggested.

>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.

Did I say that?  I'm sure there were some that told Picasso that his images
were uncomfortable to look at.  Perhaps they even indicated that there were
some psychological or physiological issues he should be concerned about as well.

>>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.

Is this true in all cases?

>It sounds like you are only interested in trashing the past.  

Did I say that?  Show me where.

>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.
>
>>The 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.  

Nevertheless, it can be used.  When I said taken a step further, I didn't
necessarily mean widen the angle of convergence to the point you seem to be
implying.

>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.  

Hurting people how?

>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.

Rules can be broken without going the the extremes that you're intimating.
Breaking a rule doesn't have create the havoc that you allege in your post.

Paul Pascu


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