P3D Portraits - Poll time?

["Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I should have known better... Yes, my statement about portraits
looking better sometimes in 2D than 3D is a bit "stretched"
(pun intendeddd) for a 3d addict, but here is my question:

Take a look at Borris' site:

http://starosta.com/3dshowcase/igem.html

Look at the portraits, first in 2d and then 3d, and tell me:

a - Portrait views more confortably in 2d or 3d.  I prefer the 
    2d to the distorted or eyestraining 3d excercise.

b - 2d and 3d are about the same... I'll take any of the two
    at any time.

c - 3d works much better than 3d... I got to appreciate the image
    much better once I viewed it in 3d.

I vote somewhere between a and b.

Gabriel:

>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.

As I recall, I enjoyed looking at a 2D portrait of your daughter.
And I commented that good portraits work very well in 2d.  Only
very careful recording/presentation work will make them work
well in 3d.

Note that I do not have anything against portraits.  I have taken
portraits of my children that I love.  But you have to be careful
on how you present/view those.  Freeviewing is NOT the best way
to appreciate a 3d portrait.

George Themelis


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