P3D The Springsteen Prize II

[Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>]

The highly unsatisfactory results of the first competition, coupled
with people's obvious wish to keep the stereo base math discussion
alive (by cleverly disguising it as a "Depth" discussion) even after
its attempted assassination by grumblers who prefer their own tiresome
digressions, have made me decide to extend the competition with more,
less objective criteria.  The horse ain't dead, it's just being lazy. 

I still want what I want.  That is, a PRACTICAL application of
Spicer/Bercovitz in the form of an easily used, not too precise but
not too sloppy, non-electronic calculating device.  I believe it is
possible.  I believe it is desirable.  I believe we have the talent on
this list to do it.  Some could do it in their sleep.  (Though the
custom calculator web site found by the lovely and talented Gabriel
Jacob is I suppose a comforting last resort.)  I do not need a
meaningless competition between "be happy", "1/30", and "deep math". 
I don't need to hear arguments like "I've eaten with my fingers for 99
years and have had some wonderful meals. Why you trying to shove a
spoon down my throat?"  Nobody is shoving anything.  I have a need and
am trying to fill it.

"What's with this guy?", you must now be asking.  "Why won't he just
let it go so we can get back to talking about nudity?" (more on THAT
later.)  Well I believe that the depth in a picture is a variable that
a stereo photographer has a right, and sometimes a need, to control -
sometimes with more precision, sometimes with a guess.  Just like
exposure (which has math), focus (which has math), focal length (which
has math), choice of film, printing paper, lighting, ad nauseum -
"depth control" as Herbert McKay called it is part of the stereo
palette.  And base math is the way you quantify it when you want more
control rather than less.  I use Sunny 16 for exposure a lot, and most
of the time it is swell.  But there are many shots that, to be honest,
would have benefited by a little more accuracy from a light meter.  I
like to cook by instinct - a handful of this, a squirt of that - but I
still have measuring cups in the kitchen and I use them, and I learn
from using them.  I am not "tyrannized" by them into measuring
everything down to the last gram - they just help me.

So, if stereo photographers are allowed to own light meters, then why
not depth meters?   1.2 mm on-film deviation is a benchmark, not a
rule.  Like carrying a grey card for certain exposure evaluations, a
depth meter used over time just might enhance your understanding of
depth in pictures and free you artistically to make informed choices
in tricky situations or when a very precise idea is the goal.  Can
Ferwerda, McKay, Klooswyk, Bercovitz and all the other formula-toting
folk really be just a bunch of time-wasting spoil-sports?

So the Springsteen Prize II will be a whole (un-cut) stereocard,
either from my existing small stock or from some future hypothetical
crop of acceptances, at the option of the winner and subject to his or
her approval on receipt.

The criteria are as before:  Human powered.  Non-violating of base
geometry as described by Spicer/Bercovitz.  Far-point distance between
1 foot and infinity.  Focal length, focusing point, on-film deviation,
film format all may be assumed for a given calculator - or variable if
you dare.

But with the following additions:  It shall not exceed a maximum size
of 12 inches in any direction.  It must be deemed "useful",
"reasonably accurate", "easy to use" and "seriously submitted".  The
judge(s) horse-sense will be the standard.

Or a proof that meeting the above conditions is impossible, persuasive
to the "committee".

There are people who have shared with me that they have done similar
projects already.  I believe they are able to win the prize.  I
believe the copyrighted calculator I have already found could, with
modification, meet the new criteria.  I believe the base equation is
not hard - I understand it with nothing more than dimly-remembered
high school algebra and a little self-taught trig.  The work of
getting it onto a device is much trickier, I admit.

The other, side category of a multi-bar linkage designed to animate
the relationship between subject distance and on-film deviations was
purely a whim, purely for fun for those strange souls who enjoy such a
thing.  Like me.  Deering has taken this one on too.  You have to hand
it to the guy.

Special thanks to Boris and to Tony Alderson for their sensible
postings in this general area over the last week.

Condolences to George Gioumousis whom I suspect, like me, is afflicted
with the belief that math *is* beautiful, when you listen to it
without bias, and put it to practical, judicious use.

Sincerely,
Bruce (How Deep Do You Want to Go?) Springsteen
  
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2955
***************************