P3D Re: Faking it? No!

["Gregory J. Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. T. wrote in response to my certified "opinion-laden" post:

>I view the above and previous statements on the subject with some
>reservation.  So, the only way to photograph a distant object/scene is via
>hyperstereo?

No, I didn't say that.  Hypers are certainly one way to restore the missing
third dimension, but not the only way.  I suggested re-composing the shot
with a foreground subject as another "classic" way.  What I only hinted at,
and what I will now say explicitly (and I guess this puts me in agreement
with Boris to a large extent, although he didn't use these words) is that
some subjects just don't work in (i.e. benefit from) stereo.  Would you
photograph the "Mona Lisa" in stereo just because you were there?  If so,
why?

>My answer:  No!  Things in life come in a wide variety. Short, long, big,
>short, depthy, flat.  The scene is far away.  It is flat.  I like it and I
>will take the picture.  I mount the picture behind the window and it
>provides enough stereoscopic stimulus for my brain.  Objects in the
>foreground enhance my feeling of  being there .  I was there.  This is what
>I experienced.

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I know I'm not going to change your
opinion.  But in my mind you might as well break out your flattie camera
and take some good monoscopic shots of that landscape; you'll get twice
as many.  Mounting a flat shot behind the window does not give the *scene*
any stereopsis, it only puts a flat image behind the window.  I'll go so
far as to point out that this is something which has been derided as
"quackery" by folks on this list when it was being done digitally on
someone's Web page from monoscopic image.  Does doing it on film with a
stereo camera somehow legitimize it?

Nevertheless, it *is* your film, your camera and your choice to produce
such images, and as I said I've done it myself from time to time.  I'm
simply saying that it is, in my opinion, a poor use of the medium, and
with the exception of some truly spectacular locations like the Grand
Canyon, Yosemite, etc., I would either revert to 2D or simply not take
the picture.

Also, I dispute your assertion that "This is what I experienced."  If your
vision is like most humans, you have something lik a 160 degree field of
view in both the horizontal and vertical.  Your Realist captures only a
small portion (less than 1/3rd) of that field, and only in the direction
in which you snapped the shutter, while in reality you probably turned your
head around and surveyed the entire landscape.  Something like Quicktime VR
is necessary to even begin to convey what you experienced (ignoring the
obvious wide-angle distortions it usually produces).  If you go around
looking at the world through a pair of toilet tissue tubes, then your
Realist might be capturing what you experienced.

Photographing Yosemite, I sorely wished for a true panoramic stereo camera,
knowing that even it would not do some of the locations justice.  With
even 8-perf-wide images, it's still like looking through a peephole at the
world, not at all what *I* experienced.

        -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)



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