P3D Re: Stereography of whole planets

[Duncan Waldron <J.Waldron@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Boris Starosta wrote:

> Now getting a real stereograph, say of the Orion Nebula or the Crab Nebula,
> with a baseline of many light years - THAT would be nice.  I'm sure lots of
> interesting structural spatial detail would result.
> 
> Duncan, are you up for it?

If only, Boris, if only... I dream of doing such a thing, but my employers
have so far not approved the travel request!

>From an earlier Boris posting:

> Surely you've seen my stereo view _Atlas Industrial Robot_, which
> contains (at least in part) a view of our globe.
> (Look at starosta.com/3dshowcase/ihex2.html).

Yep, just had a look. Good work, I'm sure, but not quite my cup of tea.
Now you're starting to make me question what interests me in 3D. All the
references in the world to 3D comics don't grab my interest a bit, and I
think that 3D computer-generated stuff falls in the same category. I guess
that if a monoscopic version of an image doesn't appeal to me, then
neither will a stereo one. Hence, astronomical images really grab my
attention, as do, for example, images from SEMs and conventional
microscopes, of certain subjects. 

I guess a lot of the appeal of stereoscopy for me is in showing a 3D
effect where none can ordinarily be seen. The inference to be drawn from
that, is that there is probably no point in me ever buying a Realist (am I
speaking your language, Boris?), whereas hypers and hypos give the
audience (including yours truly) the chance to appreciate that the moon is
round, Hale-Bopp is nearer than the stars, and that bugs aren't flat,
until you squash them.

> But not even the astronauts orbiting in space get anything other than a
> "flat" view of our spherical earth.  Any stereography of planets, using
> hyper baselines (very hyper indeed!), or rotation of the subject, will 
> not be much less realistic than a computer generated stereo of same. 

Not much less realistic? Surely they will be a lot more realistic. How can
a real photo possibly be less realistic than a computer-generated image?

> With all due respect to Dan's efforts, they are fun to look at, but
> I find not very spatially/volumetrically interesting. 

Boris, you've no soul! What better way to look at a globe than *as* a
globe. And if you're going to look at a globe, let's choose one of the
biggest, most turbulent ones around. OK, I'm sure the NASA stuff is
something of a fudge, involving real images and computers, but there is
the basis of reality there. Speaking as a purist, I would of course prefer
to see real images, taken through a real telescope, and not just a
computer prediction of where certain general features will be at a given
date, which is what the NASA site gives you, but it's better than nowt.

Ah well, each to his own
Duncan (gone to do some more pondering about the whys and wherefores of
3D)


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