P3D Re: Optimum, again!

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:08:53 -0600
>From: "Andrea Blair" <asblair@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D Optimum, again!

>>>>>George A. Themelis wrote: Please Mike, don't confuse the issue 
>again. :-)  1.2 mm is not "optimum". It is maximum!!!  And as Boris 
>posted earlier, it can easily be ignored under certain circumstances 
>(meaning going even higher). What would the *maximum* be in a viewer? 
>Depends on your eyes, I guess. There is no established standard and 
>there should not be any IMO.<<<<

>I'm confused - If 1.2 mm is the *maximum*, that should mean you cannot, 
>under any circumstances, at all, ever go higher, right? Then George goes 
>on to say (quoting Boris) that it can easily be ignored under certain 
>circumstances, and you can go even higher. Huh? This certainly sounds 
>like 1.2 mm is a highly recommended *optimum*, but not the absolute. 
>Does "easily ignored" mean "incorrectly ignored", i.e. WRONG?

I think to some extent, two different things are being discussed: the 
horizontal disparity between the nearest and the most distant objects in 
the scene in the two photos, and the separation (relative to the frame, or
whatever) of the most distant objects in the scene. If a limitation for the
latter is exceeded, the eyes must diverge to view objects at infinity,
causing discomfort.

Of course there are other factors, as Boris and Jim C pointed out.

John R


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