Re: What can you do in 2d that cannot do in 3d

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 
>From: P3D Dr. George A. Themelis writes:
>
>During the PSA convention in St. Charles, I was constantly reminded of the
>things you can easily do in 2D but cannot do (or can only do with
>specialized equipment and lots of effort) in 3D.
>
>The Africa slide show that I attended showed pictures of birds in flight
>taken with a 300/2.8 lens.  Try that in 3d! 

*****  Certainly not impossible, and I'd love to try it! Challenging? Of course.

>
>James Paradise spends a lot of time aligning 2D images to create a
>successful montage by putting textures, suns, moons in 2D slides.  Try that
>in 3d!  

******  I have to laugh at this example! This is a very very easy thing to
do with digital 3D!!! It would be spectacular transferred back to slide film
too. This is particularly an effect that I would prefer to see in 3D and
would instantly criticize a 2D exhibition of this type as being needlessly
limited.

(It can only be done in a small fraction of the situations.  The
>texture that blends well in a 2d image has to be placed somewhere in the 3d
>space and that's a big challenge - I plan to write an article in Inside-3d
>magazine about this.)

******  The obvious yet overlooked solution is to use 3D textures. Of course
they have to be placed at some depth, that's 3D! I specialize in 3D textures
in case you haven't seen them. This is one very obvious and good use for
them. Infinite possibilities exist in this category alone. If you write an
article claiming it's not advisable or easy, I will have to write one with
the opposite viewpoint!! ;-)

>
>In my camera bag I can pack one camera body, a 24 mm lens,  a 100 mm macro
>lens, and a 500 mm mirror lens and within minutes I can switch from
>wide-angle landscapes, to portraits, to 1x macros, to distant wildlife and
>moon pictures.   Try that in 3d!

*****  With the right budget it's certainly possible! I'd rather do it in 3D
given an opportunity to do so.

>
>In St. Charles I took a Realist, a Belplasca and my twin Minolta X-700s
>with 45 mm lenses and one 24 mm lens.  Despite the fact that I was carrying
>4 camera bodies and 7 lenses (I am counting 2 lenses on each stereo
>camera), I could not do some basic things like take close-up portraits of
>the models (for that I would need the bottom-to-bottom Konicas with longer
>lenses) or take close-ups/macros of tabletops they had in the workshops
>(for that I would need my 50 mm macro lens, a tripod and a slide bar).  And
>yet, a 2d photographer with one camera body and one lens (35-80 zoom macro
>lens) could have covered all these situations.

*****  Good argument for better and variable 3D cameras!!!!  When the budget
and time permit, I'll be doing just this sort of thing and it needn't be any
more difficult than the 2D situation you describe.

>
>I agree with Ron... 2D is too easy to do. 

******  I have no argument with 2D being easier, but I have to ask why would
anyone want to waste the opportunities with 2D if they already know about
and love 3D?

> Many of the subjects/techniques
>photographed/applied in 2d are nearly impossible to do in 3d.  Stereo is a
>challenge.  That's why we love it!

******  Why I love 3D is that just about ANY interesting 2D shot I've seen,
or special effect I've read about would be more spectacular in 3D and I
generally can figure a way to get it, even if I don't have the budget to
carry out the plans. I can't buy the *nearly impossible in 3d* attitude at
all. It's just not complete. Maybe it's because I work so much with digital
images, but I use cameras to obtain the original images, so it's all
connected. You just have to think in 3D. :-)

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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