P3D Re: My 3-D litmus test

[MHGug@xxxxxxx]

 Paul Talbot wrote:

>Some subject matters are not well suited to applying this litmus
>test.  Images with "continuous depth", like a large field of
>smoothly cut grass, train tracks, or long corridors make it
>very difficult or impossible to perceive the airspace under
>normal viewing circumstances.  That has a lot to do with why
>I find stereo images with continuous depth of this sort quite
>boring.  Why not just shoot them in 2D?  The non-stereoscopic
>depth cues are so strong that stereoscopy adds little information.

 I like 3-D images that use planes and angles. To me the stereoscopy adds
quite a bit even if the non- stereo depth cues are strong. I try to use both
the "airspace" and planes and angles in the conversions I do. The angles seem
to lead your eye into the image. They can also strengthen the effect on any
flat level objects you may have in the scene. I'm not a photographer and
certainly no expert but I find
continuous depth and in the round images to be more detailed and interesting
to look at. Not boring at all! I have a good converted anaglyph example (long
corridor) on my page if anyone cares to check it out: To me there's a big
difference between the one eyed and two eyed views.

http://members.aol.com/vitsigns/home/lamb.html

Thanks for your time everyone! Mike Hodsdon

  

 


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