P3D Re: Can't see it? Is it there?

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> >That is, aren't they both working toward the same purpose
> >of having a pleasing image (or terrifying image... whatever)?
> 
> Yes they are but you have to remember that an image can
> be very good technically but not aesthetically pleasing.

Very very true. Sigh.....  :-)

> Conversely the image can be good aesthetically but
> technically poor. I think a good image should be judged
> on both aspects, but this is only my opinion.

I think the image *has* to be technically adequate in order
to be aesthetically good.  And to me, being aesthetically
good is the point of having the image, so if one thinks 
an image aesethtically good, then the judging need
go no further -- the end goal has been reached.  The
opponent's King chess piece has been captured.

In other words, if an image "looks great" where there is a 
disabling technical problem, I think that one really is 
thinking that an image has great potential if something is 
fixed because the stereo image currently is terrible aesthetically due
to the technical error.

Mike K.


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