P3D Re: I prefer portraits in 2D

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997
>From: "Dr. George A. Themelis" writes:
>
>>Part of the problem here is when I cross view I get a different
>>result from one I parallel view.  When I cross view, I get vergence
>>miniaturization and so I tend to want to move back to get more chin 
>>out of the pair.  When I parallel view, I want to move in because it's
>>a little more normal-size looking. 
>>    
>>What do you others think?  

*****  I get essentially the *same* results either way. The tendency to move
back with crossed viewing is because of converging your eyes to points
between yourself and the screen. The farther back you move, the less crossed
your eyes have to be. In parallel viewing the vergence point is behind the
screen. This variation in geometry accounts for the perception of the
parallel version appearing larger since it's present at a more distant part
of the viewing cone, but other than that basic geometry difference, the
images appear in essence the same for both methods. It's all in educating
the interpretation.

>
>You know what I think!!!  When it comes to computer stereo of
>portraits, I think less is better.  Less depth, less deviation,
>less stretched chins.
>
>I'll go a step further... I look at Boris' attractive model
>and it looks great in 2D.  I look at it in 3D and the effect
>is spoiled.  I know that the model has a chin that sticks out
>of the head.  Do I need 3D to confirm this?  I don't!  What 
>exactly is it in a portrait that I will appreciate in 3D?
>The length of the nose?  I don't think so.  I look again and 
>again at Boris' model and say "2D is better".  Sorry 3D fans.

*****  I think Boris' model looks great in his jewelry shots. Very
satisfying depth that is NOT overdone. Perhaps more importantly, not
under-done! People DO have chins, and it's only traditional 2D portraiture
that makes us forget that a chin is a chin. Let there be 3D and let people
have their chins back!  ;-) I have seen 3D images that I thought were
exagerated, but not these. Bosis' model is very attractive and the portraits
don't look at all exagerated to me. When I first viewed the jewelry pages on
his site I couldn't find the *exagerated* scenes some of you had been
discussing. The pictures looked wonderful. It's only upon reading various
posts again I realize it is this very attractive page that's causing the stir.

The only place where the depth seems too much is the elbow, and only the
elbow, in the Nude image titled *henry*.

I've been noticing peoples chins in real life and find that when I use the
*STEREO SECRETS OF THE ANCIENTS* they have chins that protrude, and noses
too. Quite startling to realize that generations of viewing flat pictures
has reshaped how we think about our own appearance! I've outgrown the 2D
thing... 

Today I find that if I stand across the room (small room - 6 feet) and look
at the monitor, I can just get the parallel viewing (on Boris' site) to
work. That allows me to compare the crossed view with the parallel view side
by side, and both still appear quite the same. (though stretched due to the
greater distance from the screen, which is easy to interpret (mentally
cancel out) so that my subjective view of the image doesn't appear distorted.)

I find I'm incurably a 3D nut. I can't see any 2D image without improving it
by conversion to 3D in my mind. (probably from actually converting pictures
to 3D on the computer.)

As to 3D portraits? There aren't enough of them, in any format. :-)

Larry Berlin

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


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