P3D Re: Faking it? No!

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> 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?

IMO, it's only quackery when in real life the photographer would have
seen depth when looking at the scene with his/her eyes -- but the
image provided shows none.

If the actual scene *is* flat, then is mother nature guilty
of quackery because she shows no depth to the human eye? 

To me, quackery is when a falsehood occurs, and a stereo image
that is true-to-life isn't a falsehood, even if it looks flat.

> 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.

That's a sticky path for arguement.  One also won't experience the
heat, the wind, the chill, the hotdog smells, etc.  What the realist
might show is indeed a subset of the experience, but a panaoramic 
image also is a subset as well.  Saying one subset is proper, and
another subset isn't ..... uh..... sticky.  :-)

Mike K.

P.S. - I only speak in terms of using the hyper method of "fixing it",
       not adding a little foreground before the jump to infinity.


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