P3D Re: Photography vs Stereography

[aifxtony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Tony Alderson)]

>Bruce Springsteen wrote(digest 2868):
>I've always been intrigued by the folks who site stereography's "realism"
>as the most appealing - or the most unique aspect of - the medium. ... I
>am more generally looking for an interesting, attractive, surprising
>visual experience - which often but not necessarily will involve the
>realism criteria named. <

I absolutely agree with this. I have always found the plasticity of stereo
space to be one of it's most intriguing aspects. It's true three
dimensional images have a "reality" which distinguishes them from flattie
pix, but considering stereography is illusion, like magic, it is great fun
to play with the illusion to make the unreal "real".  It's like bringing a
dream into the waking world. In any case, true orthoscopy is about
impossible to achieve, but fortunately human perception is flexible enough
that approximation is generally good enough. ("approximoscopy"? ;-)  )

>Selective focus is one 2D tool that seems needlessly taboo in 3D.<

Jerry Walter and Rick Finney, among others, have dramatically demonstrated
that selective focus can be highly effective in stereo.  It has to be used
judiciously, but should not be arbitrarily excluded.

>"Cardboarding" or extreme distance between planes can work for me too, if
>it is in service to an interesting 3D composition.<

A vivid Viewmaster memory from my youth is an image of a Lakota in full
regalia posed in the Black Hills. Cardboarded like crazy, but the
contradiction of reality and unreality absolutely fascinated me.  Some of
the old TruVue cartoon strips, photos of cutouts in 3D space (not
conversions!) have the same effect.

I've got nothing against orthoscopy, I like "real" stereo too, but let's
not limit ourselves to mere recordings of the external world--we experince
stereopsis internally, we ought to play with our perceptions too.  It's fun
and it's art!

Tony Alderson
aifxtony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



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