P3D Stereodynamic Bumblebees

[Michael Georgoff <Michael_Georgoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

(G'wan, you dead horse, git up 'afore I beats you to death again!)

Brian Reynolds comments:
>Now if you had said that our current (general) understanding of 
>stereo base was at the level of aerodynamics theories at the turn 
>of the century I could agree (and be prepared to be proven wrong).

As Felix the Cat would say, "Righty-O!"  Aerodynamic understanding has
indeed advanced over the last hundred years, from Kitty Hawk to F16's,
but I am personally very surprised that the last hundred years have not
come up with a generally accepted formula for the calculation of stereo
base. It appears to my novice brain that there are way too many formulas
offered, with varying degrees of complexity, and no one single formula
has gained general acceptance.  I still perceive the issue of stereo
base as one of geometry, which should have, given decade of pondering,
come up an elegant solution. 

BTW, I raised the ruckus here on base among the "general populace"
instead of on T3D to get a feel for what the generalist view was on the
issue of base.  I conclude, in sweeping generalization, that the
math-side folks don't/won't agree with each other, many have learned and
either now intuit or have tossed aside math, many have never used it,
and evidence of mathlessness is no barrier to getting pleasing results.
Mathematical correctness, if it could be agreed upon, may produce
maximum allowable and splendid depth, but so what. George cites an
example of flat and/or negative base among PSA award winners, math
ignorance or outright anti-math getting good results.

Bruce quotes Drouin "...the conditions of the desired relief once
determined upon, it is no longer possible to hesitate over the
separation of lenses."  I think it more accurate to say  "...the
conditions of the desired relief once determined upon, it is no longer
NECESSARY to hesitate over the separation of lenses."  My issue with
base is the search to determine the "conditions of relief" in order to
dispense with hesitation.  Drouin says "hesitate" and in this sense, it
is field use (not studio, table top, or lab) the elusive praying mantis
on the leaf will not wait for me to boot up an Excel spreadsheet

The answer, taking into account all recent posts, lies somewhere between
Euclid and Picasso.

I think I'll start with Mike Watter's simple distillation of 1/F, talk
the approach of Dr. T, Andrea, Bruce, and many, many others, and just
learn from experience.  I was hoping for more solid guidance from
geometry and mathematics, but such is not to be found.

Thanks for all the Deep Math, Bumblebees and lively, opinionated debate.
I enjoyed the hell out of it and learned a lot.

Michael Georgoff



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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2901
***************************