P3D Re: Portraits - Poll time?

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997
>From: "Dr. George A. Themelis"writes:
>
>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 2d... I got to appreciate the image
>    much better once I viewed it in 3d.
>
>I vote somewhere between a and b.

*****   I'm definitely in the C it in 3D group! 

>........................  Freeviewing is NOT the best way
>to appreciate a 3d portrait.
>

*****  I can't agree with that at all. I think freeviewing is one of the
most appropriate and enjoyable forms of stereo experience one could hope
for. Any stereo image large enough to see can be enjoyed as freeviewed, even
though it's not Ortho. The scale factor is easy to interpret. It's simple,
basic and instantly rewarding.  I wouldn't want to forgo any of the other
wonderful 3D viewing methods, but freeviewing isn't at the bottom of the
list by a long ways. Anaglyph maybe... 2 1/2 D, likely.

Larry Berlin

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


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