P3D re: Portraits & 2D Firsts

[jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gabriel Jacob)]

>George! I can't believe my "ears"!
>
>>What 
>>exactly is it in a portrait that I will appreciate in 3D?

Hey Ron, that's exactly what I wanted to post, but you beat me 
to it! :-) I couldn't believe that was George "saying" that.
But then I thought maybe it was his twin brother, George Themelis
that said it and not Dr.T. Remember, George Themelis is into 2D
and has Photo Gallery at
http://www.dadada.com/gallery/george/theme.html

Now Dr.T is a bona fide 3-D aDDDict.

All fun aside, I do agree with Ron, that portraits are one of the
most interesting stereo that one can do. I remember a shot I took
of my father-in-law that when viewed in 2D looks kinda average,
but when viewed in 3-D is amazing and not only is it because of
the depth but the increase in detail perceived. It does not look
like the same image, and I could not have predicted the outcome.

Another advantage with portraits, is they work especially well on 
computer monitors, and large prints. This is because the image
takes on an almost life like size. For projection I can see that
being a problem and full body shots would be more appropriate.
I have an anaglyph shot of my daughter, and it looks almost life
like, will try to find the file and post it on the web.
Ron had a beautiful stereo pair of a child which I remember even
George (or was that Dr.T?) particularly liked! And likewise
Boris had some nice ones of the model wearing the fine jewelery. 

This brings me to Ron's second post regarding Mark Dottle's method
of sorting 3-D images. Again, that's similiar to what I was thinking
but I wouldn't have put it as concisely as you did. As mentioned above
regarding portraits, I couldn't have predicted the outcome of the
stereo image just by looking at the 2D image. I would have missed a
great shot, that way. In alot of cases you probably can pre-select the
good ones, but you might let some unsuspectingly good ones slip away.

Gabriel


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