P3D Re: SD3D Bryce 2

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 03:08 PM 4/19/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>........ ( I asked)................
>>ing programs. It's also capable of animation, however I wonder
>>if it's possible to set up parallel action paths for the camera such that
>>you can render two separate eye paths through the scene and end up with
>>matching pairs in the animation?
>>
>
>I don't know about that yet, but I expect it to be quite difficult -
>particularly if your "two lensed camera" will be moving in curved paths,
>i.e. paths of different lengths.

****   I suppose it would be possible if you set each view point as a key
frame and managed to align the two paths very precisely.

>
>My personal opinion/expectation of 3-D animation and video, so far, is that
>it is not worth it.  As I continue in my work and discovery of the medium
>of stereo photography, I am coming to believe that stereo is the ultimate
>refinement of an image.  Ultimate, in the sense that it is the last
>improvement that should be made.  I think stereo adds substantial value -
>more value than added cost - only to those images that are already of the
>highest quality and resolution.
>
>When stereo is added to low quality images, like video or computer images,
>the added value sometimes doesn't justify the cost (by cost I am referring
>not just to the added expense of production or hardware, but also the
>reduced comfort of having to wear goggles, or endure flicker, or other
>drawbacks).  The stereo images that I present on my websites serve an
>instructive purpose, but many will arguably look better to most people as
>single full screen images.
>
>In video especially, where resolution is already quite low, and motion
>parallax already adds strong depth cues, adding stereo is really a waste, I
>think.  Particularly because some of the stereo video processes I've seen
>further degrade the resolution (vertical resolution is halved).
>
>But none of this is to say that I will never experiment with stereo
>animation...  When I do, I'll try to make the best of it.
>

****  Your opinion here is understandable if you only look at the narrow
picture. The more I explore and work with stereo as an environment, the more
convinced I am that the current usages for that medium are still in an
ignorant infant stage. It is therefore not realistic to conclude that stereo
is worthless for anything but Hi-res photo related usages. That is strictly
a short term, extremely limited outlook.

The future for stereo as well as the future for all imagery resides in the
digital realm, like it or not. Whatever you find unsatisfactory today may
not be that way tomorrow as a general understanding grows. Without developed
examples to evaluate and imitate, the progress won't take place.  Along the
way there are bound to be huge numbers of attempts to use stereo that will
appear on the surface to support your view. The truth is that they are just
experiments, and as such they hold more promise than you give them credit for.

It is impossible to do in 2D what is possible in stereoscopic 3D. That's
true for any image medium you care to name. The fact that others may not
have used it fully to advantage does not serve as an adequate measuring
device to throw out the *baby with the bathwater.* Instead it should serve
only as an incentive to more fully explore and exploit stereo in ways that
prove the value of stereo.

There will always be some things that for various reasons don't need to be
anything other than 2D. That doesn't affect the potential and real values of
stereo 3D, including for animation and video.

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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