P3D Re: Depth in stereography?

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> 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).

Why not?  Why not use the system (fully adequate to doing the job) 
that's fully compatible with all of one's other photos?

Mike K.

> Regardless of whether its a good picture or not, can a picture with
> no depth be considered a stereoscopic picture? 

Is there a difference to calling the picture "stereoscopic" vs. calling
it "3D"?  Can it be the first without being the second (a word definition
question, not a technical question)?

Mike K.


P.S. - If stereoscopic photos require 3D perception of them, then will
       a stereoscopic slide stop being one when being held by those (already 
       documented on this list repeatedly over the years) who can't see
       depth when shown viewers?  To such a person, then, there's no such
       thing as stereoscopic photos?


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