P3D Re: Alternatives to "insufficient depth"

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


>I agree BUT the problem is.. EVEN a properly exposed picture that
>is sharp doesn't capture reality. This is because of the limitations
>of film. Alot of distant scenic shots that supposedly look like
>backdrops in real life don't look like backdrops to me except on film!
>Now it can be claimed this is because of my limitations as an amateur
>photographer BUT it seems everyone claims those distant mountains
>(or whatever) don't "look" 3-D in real life, which I claim otherwise
>(unless of course it's hazy).


Motion parallax?  Power of suggestion, perhaps?  (You know the scene is
real because you are "there", therefore it "must" have depth, and so you
"see" depth?)
Or, maybe without the MTF of a pair of triplet lenses, film chips and
viewer lenses in the way, there is sufficient optical resolution to
produce some stereopsis when you're there "live"?

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)



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