P3D Depth in stereography?

[jon siragusa <siragusa@xxxxxxxx>]

Eric Goldstein wrote:
>
>There are of course many exceptions, but for me whether it's flat,
>stereo, b/w, color, hand-tinted... the question is not "does it have
>depth" but does it captivate? Does it intrigue? Does it have impact?
>Emotional resonance? Facination? After all is said and done and the
>novelty of the reconstruction of depth is behind us, are we creating
>images which will endure the test of time and still be worth looking at?
>IMO the answer has very little to do with how much depth the shot
>captures...
>

I agree with you 100% Eric.  However there is one thing that is still 
on my mind which was originally brought up by Greg Wageman (i think).  
Why not shoot it in 2D?  If your picture will have no depth given the 
stereo base of your camera (and you don't want to shoot hyper, etc) then 
why bother shooting it with your stereo camera, mounting it in stereo 
mounts and viewing it in a stereo viewer?  The only time I can see
myself doing this is when my one camera is a Realist (and even then
I'd cha-cha).

Regardless of whether its a good picture or not, can a picture with
no depth be considered a stereoscopic picture?  In my opinion taking 
a "stereo" picture of something at infinity (with no frame, etc.) and
mounting it behind the window is hardly different than emanon selling 
his field shifter box to convert TV from 2D to 3D!

I'm NOT saying this shouldn't be done.  I'm saying there is very 
little difference.

jon




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