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

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997
>From: P3D John W Roberts comments:
>
>
>...............(I said)................
>>******  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?
>
>Larry, this post and your post before this one (limitations of 3D) come
>across an inspirational essay on why the realm of 3D should be extended -
>which I think is great, and a major contribution.
>
>But it sounds like you're using this line of reasoning as an admonishment
>to *never* take 2D pictures, and I don't agree with that. 

******  I never have said NOT to take 2D pictures and in fact said about the
opposite of that. You mention reading the previous post and if you will
refer to it again, you will notice that I definitely do not indicate 2D
shouldn't be used. As to *admonishment* flavors, perhaps that's because it
seems quite surprising to me to hear hardened 3D'rs advocating 2D over 3D
for special effects which I find to be one of the most fun aspects of 3D.
Certainly not an impossibility in 3D. 

I too face times or moments when the equipment on hand are not up to the
task for the 3D that I'd like, but I don't determine from those times that
the effects are somehow unreasonable just because I didn't have the right gear.

>.............. If satisfying those additional constraints requires compromises
>that cause a particular photograph to be less effective for the purpose for
>which I intended it, then I would do better in that particular case to take
>a 2D photograph.

******  I completely agree with you. I will point out however that 98% of
the time I now go out to take photos, the intention is for 3D of one sort or
another. There are plenty of others devoted to 2D work. I don't suggest
everyone who mixes 2D and 3D in their work should change what they are happy
with, just don't give up on the 3D until you've given the situation some of
what it deserves, a bit of 3D thinking. If 3D photographers are missing
excellent 3D shots because they didn't recognize them, that's a loss. If you
are shooting 2D and miss a 3D shot, oh well. In order to make my point, I
had to speak to the ideas raised and come up with what I felt were
reasonable options for 3D results. Not that the 2D options as 2D weren't
acceptable.

>
>Example: if I set up a camera and a telescope with a motor drive, I can take
>a nice 2D photograph of the M31 galaxy. Getting a baseline of 60000 light
>years or so for depth within the galaxy is not practical at this time.

****  You and I both probably wish for a place to put our cameras to get
such a shot!!! That's a circumstance where you take the 2D original and
convert it to 3D, but it takes time and effort to accomplish this and is a
different topic. I still think the 3D result after conversion would be
somewhat more satisfying to look at than the 2D original.


>.................. It's possible to use astronomical information
>to create a 3D computer model and generate a 3D image from that - but that
>would probably take me a year or more to do.

******  Two different approaches are possible. One is the model approach
that you mention. Advantages are that once created, you can create an
infinite number of stereo pairs from any direction you choose.  If it took a
year to compile the model, it might still be worthwhile. However such models
have already been generated by someone, though they aren't being used to
create stereo images. What a major loss!!! The fly-throughs are spectacular,
but they could be in stereo too. Or maybe they very very mistakenly think no
one is interested in seeing the 3D versions?

The other approach is to take the original and duplicate the image while
creating parallax in the duplicate. It would take significantly less than a
year, maybe a month or less, and would be quite spectacular in and of itself
even though still just one view. This approach is seldom thought of, let
alone attempted, despite it's relatively easier methods.

>............. but I don't see any reason
>to deliberately refrain from taking 2D galaxy photographs in the meantime.

******  Excellent example of a purpose for 2D!!!  Again, I never said not to
take 2D.


Larry Berlin

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


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