Re: Those who cannot see or enjoy stereo

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997
>From: P3D Dirk Djuga writes:
>......................
>I was tempted to post when the discussion was on about if a perfect
>digital stereo camera existed everybody would buy it.
>
>I refrained because I thought everyone was aware of the following:
>
>Stereo is _not_ 3D. 

*****  I'm afraid I cannot agree with your statement. If you mix apples and
oranges, it's a mistake to determine that oranges must be red in color.

Stereoscopic 3D is about stereo vision. The whole topic presupposes the
limited subject of visual perception and specifically the reconstruction of
visual stimuli that resembles or is close to the true experience. True,
other effects are present and part of the normal physical experience.
However saying that *stereo is not 3D* is a gross twist of sematics and
takes the subject out of context.

>
>It is but one aspect of many that allow us to perceive space.
>
>There are many more:
>
>Motion of objects
>Motion of the viewer
>The time it takes for something to move

*****  These are motion related effects which have no direct application in
still photography, other than blurring effects which are associated with
movement. It's out of place to determine that *stereo is not 3D* based on
the presence or absence of motion effects. If you want motion, simply use a
stereo motion camera or stereo video camera and capture more of the full
experience.

>We can _touch_ things and move them around
>Sound
>Weight

*****  Again, more properties discussed out of context. You can't reach out
and touch any object represented by an image, 2D or 3D. But with your eyes,
you can explore the 3D surfaces represented by 3D photography, which you
can't do with a 2D image. Stereo images do exist in a 3D spatial existence,
even if it is just light rather than substance. We are talking about a 3D
reconstruction of visual stimuli, not sculpture with physical objects. Both
are valid forms of 3D. Neither invalidates the other's existence. As to
sound, if you want sound in the reconstruction, record it and play it back.
It's absence doesn't negate the validity of a 3D effect from stereo photos.

>.....................
>All of these aspects are normally absent if we present a stereoscopic
>image. Therefore it is perfectly normal for a person to get a headache
>in such a situation. This can't be cured no matter how good the picture,
>the mounting, glasses or whatever.

*****  Maybe.... The headache aspect does go away with a greater exposure
and adaptation to the experience. The presence of a headache doesn't negate
the validity of the 3D effect either. Remember people get headaches from
lots of things including learning to drive, studying calculus, failing to
drink coffee when used to drinking it, and many many other reasons.

Stereoscopic 3D is certainly a valid form of 3D. It's a twist of semantics
that is impossible to support logically to say otherwise. No one expects
that 3D images should provide solid reality, though if in the future that
can be done, it would be an interesting phenomena. It still wouldn't
invalidate the term 3D applied to the experience of viewing basic stereo photos.

This wouldn't be complete without mention of the relationship between
holography and stereoscopy, since when others make the statement you made,
they are usually promoting the idea that holography is a true form of 3D and
stereo images are somehow not 3D by comparison. The crux of the matter comes
down to the fact that whether it's a stereo image or a hologram, your eyes
perceive two versions of whatever you are looking at. The stereo experience
is still a two-eyed experience. If you happen to be enjoying a hologram,
then there are thousands more *stereo pairs* available for you to perceive
as you move your head around. However, you essentially see only one pair of
images at any given time, so it's definitely still a stereo experience, just
more complex.

Since you started your message with a mention of the 3D digital camera that
I suggested a while back, I'll point out once again, the camera I mentioned
creates both 2D and 3D images. The concept that I was discussing uses
principles unique to stereoscopic imaging to provide a better image in ANY
format. That removes the saleability of the idea from any necessity for the
public to desire 3D cameras or images. All they have to want is an easy to
use camera that does all the things they might be expected to want, plus
more. That makes it saleable to the general public on the basis of sheer
utility. However, since 3D is the fundamental part of the proposed camera,
they certainly are likely to play with the stereo output as well as enjoy
film quality 2D images from a digital source. 

Part of the idea is to get away from the many fixed and limiting notions
about cameras. A stereo camera does stereo but has it's limitations. Single
lensed cameras come in many forms and can be used for stereo imagery if you
know what you want. Different lenses can be heavy to carry around and use
and generally only work with a particular brand.  Twin rigs provide another
range of stereo utility, with it's own limits. Digital suffers from a
resolution significantly lower than film technology. There are improvements
on the horizon, but even those are not in themselves able to provide film
quality resolution. Put all those factors into one camera, with a bit of
*stereo magic* and the digital camera of the future can be visualized. 

No longer would it be necessary to lug some large number of cameras around
to get all the images you want. You can go from snapshot quality to super
high resolution with the same camera with a minimum of fuss. Even dial up a
desired Zoom or Macro function. You can even decide later that you'd like
any captured image as 3D or 2D and be able to obtain that from the recorded
data. Printing services could provide prints or slides from the data. Or
they could be viewed on the TV or computer. There is no need for a set of 50
different cameras to cover all the bases if it can be built into one camera.
The only way to build it into one camera is to excell at each of the
properties desired. Digital processing offers such a possibility. There
would still be endless variations possible for the new camera format so
don't expect a single camera model. It's more likely to start out with
dozens of variations and expand from there.

Larry Berlin

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


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