P3D setting to exact infinity

[bercov@xxxxxxxxxxx (John Bercovitz)]

>> The human eyes can locate and interpret
>> infinity relative to the contents of the scene, so an absolute adherence to
>> a fixed infinity separation seems almost pointless...

> To you, perhaps, and usually to me, but some recent posts indicate that some
> people have an extremely strong interest in making their 3D photos as much
> like "real life" as possible. Relative (rather than absolute) reproduction
> of depth may be a tolerable compromise for most 3D enthusiasts (because it
> simplifies some other issues, as you note), but relative depth is not
> the most "realworldlike" that can be managed.

I think it's a matter of degree.  On Boris' site, I got a real difference
in scale if I cross-viewed because the convergence was so high (this is an 
_extreme_ cae of infinity being at the wrong separation).  George (Dr. T) 
(in a private message) didn't see this effect to a noticeable degree.  So
not only does the error have to be large, it's also relative.  However, for 
comfort in switching from one pair to the next, I sure like to have them
all at the same infinity setting.  To me, as a less experienced viewer, 
these sudden shifts when the projector goes from one setting to the next 
are a bit distracting.  Maybe not so much that it's right out there in-your-
face type annoying me, but it's enough that I feel more comfort in viewing 
slides where the infinity setting is consistent.

John B


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2450
***************************