P3D Re: Depth in stereography?

[jon siragusa <siragusa@xxxxxxxx>]

>
>> 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)?
>

Not that this actually makes any point but...
>From WordNet [http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn]:

   2. stereo, stereoscopic picture, stereoscopic photograph -- (two 
      photographs taken from slightly different angles that appear
      three-dimensional when viewed together)

>
>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?
>

Hmmm... perhaps we should start a phil-3d  (Philosphical discussions
pertaining to 3D).

Your question is equivalent to asking: "Do red and green colors exist since
color blind people cannot perceive them?".

In the world of stereo-blind people there is no such thing as stereoscopic
3D perception.  Just as in the world of the color-blind there is no (limited)
color perception.

But we're not speaking relative to a stereo-blind subset, but relative to
the universe.  In this case yes, there exists stereo slides (although 
some people can't view them in 3D).  Just like there exist the colors
red and green even though not everyone can see them.

So when a tree falls in the middle of the forest does it make a sound?
Does perception create existence?

Who cares!  Let just shoot 3D (with depth or otherwise) photos!

jon








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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2952
***************************