P3D Re: Focus and Depth

["Ole Hansen" <olejohan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks to those who jumped in on behalf of some minimal level
> of decency on this list...
>> OLE HANSEN wrote:
>> You have brought my patience and respect to an end by your posting.
> It is not like Ole Hansen to respond so. I can't recall any of his
> previous posts being so ill mannered and inappropriate. I'm going to
> chalk it off as a bad day, and suggest we move on.
There must be a mistake on your behalf - your posting did bring my
patience and respect to an end, and to express this, can hardly be
described as ill manered and inappropriate.
When someone posts to a newsgroup, one must expect responce, and
posting to an international newsgroup, you get responce in coherence with
the standards of the foreing cultures. I read your posting as highly
pompuos
and arrogant, and being danish, I wrote my responce in accordance with
your poasting, allthough somewhat moderated as far as arrogance is
concerned.

> There are a number of points Ole made which I disagree with,
> including his definition of depth as being solely the domain
> of stereopsis. It seems to me that our fundamental difference
> lies in the question of whether stereopsis or parallax-based
> depth is the only relevent cue stereo photographers should
> concern themselves with....
This is perfectly correct - the meaning of the word "depth" is the
point, where we disagree. The word is used with different meanings in
different trades, and should IMO, when the topic is stereophotography,
only be used to cover the visual perception of depth whish is unique
to man and some animals with two normal eyes when looking at reality
or stereograms.

> Why would we exclude other depth cues, such as convergience
> and/or shading, as useful tools when we shoot stereo?
Because they give no information about depth, but an illusion of
percepted distance.

> Why then would they be irrevelent to us in creating our stereo images?
Try to make a stereogram of two left (or right) pictures and you will
see what I am writing about, or try to swap the right and left picture
in a correctly mounted stereogram.

> Bob Maxey wrote:
>> I think inside every painter and every 2D photographer,
>> there is a stereo photographer waiting to get out.
> Bob-
> Some painters and photographers were intrigued by it....
> But everyone ? I have introduced stereo photography to many of the
> photographers I work with, and none of them showed an interest....
As I understand Bob Maxey, he is right. The change from the flat
ikonography of antiquety and the middle ages (sculpture not included)
was introduced in the paintings and murals of the early rainessance
around 1500.
Best regards
Ole Hansen - olejohan@xxxxxxxxxx


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