P3D good 2D = good 3D

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)]

>From: HatfieldMk@xxxxxxx
...
>stated goals as they relate to Stereo-Photography. For myself my chief concern
>is that the resulting image be a good photograph able to stand alone should
>the companion image be lost or damaged. I am not necessarily looking strickly

I disagree with this very strongly.  This is the philosophy that produces
so many beautiful "flat stereo" landscape photographs - and consequently
reduces interest (at least in this writer) in stereo photography.

Stereoscopic images take extra effort to produce and view.  For that extra
effort, you receive images that can impart more information.  This extra
information is what can make a terrible 2D shot a visually stimulating and
award winning 3D shot.  My example:  the Tabletop:

http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase/iabstract.html

One of the first things I learned and embraced about stereo are the special
powers it gives you over images and scenes that are otherwise too complex
or cluttered to view well in 2D.

An example in nature: not only do predators use stereo vision to fix better
on their prey in space, they also use it to cut through the camouflage that
would otherwise hide their prey.

Respectfully submitted,

Here's a nice quotation my wife just found for me:
"Eroticism is using a feather; pornography is using the whole hen."
- Isabel Allende - Aphrodite

Boris Starosta            boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
                          http://www.starosta.com
usa 804 979 3930          http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase



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