P3D Re: DIRDS not SIRDS

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>From: fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis)
>...I don't think any "researcher" will ever say that you need a stereoscope 
>to view stereoscopic images. 

Some researchers can be goaded into making all sorts of goofy generalizations 
in an interview. And some researchers are resolute in dismissing any extension 
of their ideas beyond certain narrowly defined bounds. And others are very 
willing to listen to suggestions by others.

[Strong assertions by Larry and George that people have / have not benefited
from the popularity of SIRDS, as a way to get into stereo.]

Some people who have seen me taking 3D photographs have mentioned viewing
SIRDS, and some people on P3D have mentioned that they started on SIRDS then
expanded to other fields of 3D. I know some people who can free-view stereo
pairs, but *can't* view SIRDS. I don't have any solid numbers, but neither
did the previous posts.

>>When you stop looking at the limits as limits, you can go beyond them to 
>>obvious connections otherwise not noticed. That's how simple advances remain 
>>unfound for years even with thousands of persons working with the same basic
>>information.

>You make a very good "motivational speaker".  Unfortunately, I am not the
>kind of person who is motivated by "speeches" like this.  

Perhaps Larry's advice was directed toward those who *are* able to be
motivated, and take advantage of serendipity.

>I work with metals and materials.  My relatives ask me when I am going to 
>invent the wonder-metal that is tough and formable at the same time and 
>carries other wonderful properties too.  

Not quite the same as metallurgy, but I understand the first vulcanization of
rubber was the result of an accident. Rather than just throw the mess away,
Mr. Goodyear kept his eyes open, and realized that it might be the process he
was looking for. The discovery of antibiotics is also reported to have been
a result of an accidental observation.

Larry's advice might not be quite as applicable to metallurgy - you probably
don't accidentally melt odd combinations of metals at home. But I bet a
significant number of useful alloys were originally the results of mistakes -
I know that's the case for glasses.

For the use of the Pulfrich effect for stereo viewing, I have a question:
did the observation of the effect come first, or did the idea come first,
followed by development of a way to utilize it?

Pulfrich is one of those things for which the development of the theory is
very difficult, but afterward the implementation is extremely simple. In the
days before Pulfrich stereo was understood and accepted, I strongly suspect
any number of people encountered the phenomenon by accident, and some of those
must have mentioned it to optical researchers: "When I put something dark
in front of one eye, and look at some scenes with motion in them, I get a
strange feeling of depth", and in most cases the observation was dismissed
out of hand by the researcher: "Depth perception requires two views - you
just *think* you see depth, because you're untrained and don't know any
better". Quite a few experts are *extremely* reluctant to even consider any
sort of input from someone they don't consider to be an expert, and pretty
slow to consider changing an established model to fit even their own
observations. A certain amount of "filtering" is beneficial, but too much
can slow innovation.

>I try to explain that it is much easier to dream
>about it than actually make it at a competitive cost.

Speaking of dreams:
The good old "Time-Life" science series in my junior high school library
claimed that the determination of the physical structure of the benzene
molecule was the result of a dream.

John R


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