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

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 20:19:37 -0500
>From: P3D Larry Berlin  <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: What can you do in 2d that cannot do in 3d

>>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...
 
OK, I stand corrected.

>>.............. 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. 

I also almost always try for 3D pictures (even if I only have a 2D camera
with me at the time).

>******  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?

Whatever happened with the Mars (Sojourner) rover stereo images? Did JPL 
release them in anaglyph and in no other format? 

John R


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