Re: Opinion From A Novice Part 2

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Novice Mark Dottle, expresses interesting thoughts on the art of stereo...
which remind me of some of the things that I've written here in the past on
similar subjects.

One thing that still strikes me as unusual is that most people are
preoccupied with how to capture the stereo image while little thought is
given to the viewing part.  Yet, since we experience stereo by looking at
stereo, how a stereo image is presented in our eyes is extremely important.
This is what Mark calls "Delivery".  For me, viewing has always been the
weak link, what has stopped stereo from getting the recognition it
deserves.

>It's not the art of 3-D that doesn't sell..its in the delivery. 
>Delivery is based on 3 concepts..... Format,Preferences, and 
>Explain/Confirm. Lets discuss Format first. 

While the same stereoscopic image can be presented in different formats
(stereo slides, prints, freeviewing, View-Magic, anaglyph, lenticular,
etc., etc....) not all formats have the same impact on the observer, IMO.

There a general trend for "political correctness" when stereoscopic formats
are discussed in photo-3d.  The idea is that any stereoscopic format is
worth pursuing, as long as it is stereoscopic. (This has been nicely
expressed by Dan Shelley, among others.)  While I do not disagree with 
this statement, I add that some formats are more effective for me (and 
others, I believe) and I choose and pursue those formats.  Different 
stereo formats might be worth pursuing for different people and for 
different reasons (convenience might be one) but, in my eyes, "not all
stereo formats are created equal" (famous DrT quote No. 3453).

>To create effective stereo
>images,depth & realism is obtained by "recreating" the natural process
>of vision. Each eye receives a dedicated image,prefering a
>transparent or translucent image to eliminate
>glossy reflections common with most prints.
>ISO 100 or slower reduces grain disparity (ex.
>by Dr.T earlier ) In a relaxed and natural manner, one can view ( lying,
>sitting or standing) a spectacular result! 

I think we have another DrT in the makings here... :-) 

Note that one key word is "realism".  I have argued that
realism is maximized when viewing is done under the conditions that you
just described.  If the same image is presented in the anaglyph format, I
find that while anaglyph preserves the stereoscopic effect, it has lost
most of the realism.  For me, the stereoscopic effect has the novelty that
perhaps got me started, but the realism is a key ingredient in stereo
photography, responsible for getting me going... Others don't see it that
way... They do not experience the same degree of "realism" as I do.  There
is plenty of discussion in past digests on this...

>Most would agree stereo slides are superior. 

You'd be surprised... :-)  In my eyes they are.  Others (lots of them!)
don't see it that way... (again, plenty of discussion on slides vs. prints
and similar issues in past digests) Of course, the issue of format is
more complicated than prints vs. slides, with different viewing options 
possible within the same medium (for example, free-viewing vs. using a 
viewer vs. View-Magic, etc., for prints...)

>PREFERENCE topic next.     MARK DOTTLE

Good job Mark!  Keep on going! 

George Themelis


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