P3D Re: 3-D Conversion

[r3dzone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ray Zone)]

>I can't believe they gave an award to someone just for
>rendering someone else's image in stereo. That is like
>buying some great old stereo slides, remounting them and
>then entering them in competition.

Beg to differ, Harolddd--

Stereo slides are already in 3-D.  When you create a 3-D conversion you are
investing parallax into the existing monocular image with all the infinite
possibilities that stereography presents.  In one very powerful sense, the
flat image that is converted to 3-D is a new, artistic entity that is
qualitatively apart from its monocular predecessor.

When a stereophotographer shoots nature, do they build the tree, the river,
the canyon or the mammal that they capture with that convenient visual
snare we call a camera?  Is the (stereo)photographer to take greater credit
for the beauty of that which they have trapped because they have
efficiently trapped it in light by pushing a shutter button?  How does that
take artistic precedent over a 3-D conversion?  Both art forms are taking
that which pre-existed the cameraman or 3-D artist and utilize a form of
(secondary) refashioning for a binocular display.

How much of an image do you have to invent to take artistic credit for the
stereoptical experience of it?  I believe that 3-D itself is an artform.
That means that in some inherent sense the experience of stereopsis and
it's visual expression is a separate art whatever the generation, form and
nature of the image.

Respectfully,

Ray Zone


* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ray Zone's Theory of Relative Numbers: 1 + 1 = 3(D)
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Visit Ray's 3-D Website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~r3dzone
ph 213-662-3831
fx 213-662-3830



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