P3D Depth in Stereo Photography

[Project3D@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 4/9/98 9:12:15 am, Boris Starosta wrote:

<<But because stereo is a more difficult medium to present and view (the
costs to the audience are considerable: glasses, goggles, viewers,
headaches, or whatever...) I think you have to make it worth the trouble.
When I go to the extra effort to look at a stereo photo, I do NOT want to
see flat scenery - I can enjoy that much more in a large fine print!>>

So, if I make a slide show telling the story of the re-discovery of Ancient
Egypt from to 1780s onwards, I should not show some of the magnificent
paintings of the antiquities that were made before the first stereo
representations that I have (Francis Frith - 1857)? I firmly believe that my
show would be strongly enhanced by the inclusion of some of these early
representations, albeit flat. Naturally, I would resist including flat images
after 1857, but should I leave out the interesting image from the Underwood
and Underwood 1898 set that shows Deir el Bahri COMPLETELY FLAT!!!

Boris then quotes Michael Kersenbrock:
<<...
>Is a really crummy picture with
>lots of depth way-better than a magnificient 2D image?  I think not.

That's a tough question, which I hope I will not have to answer someday soon.

Here's another question, though:

Does not a 2D image, no matter how magnificent, make a crummy stereo image?>>

Depends very much how it is used! Everybody else seems to be talking about
single images in isolation, but life is very definitely not like that!!!
Unless, of course, you are trying to create pure "art", which I (personally)
am not. I'm very comfortable being a "record photographer" :-) :-) :-)

Bob Aldridge


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