P3D Re: other depth cues

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)]

>From: Jim Crowell <crowell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
...
>looking at in the scene).  Do you have a large-aperture shot of the same
>scene?  I'm curious about how much you get from blur in the absence of
>motion parallax.

I don't think that "static" blur (such as you would get from a shallow
depth of field) would help any.  It certainly would not help you, if you
are interested in the out focus objects!  (Conversely, it would help only
insofar as the interference of a screen is removed by removal of the image
of that screen.  But what if I want to see the screen?)

As I mentioned before, but need elaborate on, this stereo pair is a
possible example of where some kind of dynamic depth of field simulation
(computer driven, most likely) might help with perception of the scene.
The computer would alternately and dynamically blur or sharpen those things
in the image pair, that are detected to be the targets of the observer's
eyes.  I am sure that the computational task is huge, plus the computer
would have to have some preconception of the spatial relationships already
in the scene.

It could probably be done with digital 3-d scenes rendered on the fly, but
I don't think it could be easily done with photographic stereo pairs.

>
>I notice that I am occasionally subject to this illusion in real life; at
>the last place where I worked one fellow liked to walk around while talking
>on the phone, and every now & then I would trip over the spiral (&
>therefore periodic) telephone handset cord because I had misperceived its
>distance.

I've experienced this also, as well as misjudging the distance of bug
screens, and wallpaper.

Respectfully submitted,





Boris Starosta

usa 804 979 3930

boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.starosta.com
http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase



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