P3D Re: My 3-D litmus test

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: MHGug@xxxxxxx <MHGug@xxxxxxx>


> 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


A great, classic Genesis album and a great 3D conversion!  Very nice.

A test I've recently been using to disambiguate whether there is
stereopsis occurring or whether all apparent depth cues are monocular is
to simply view the suspect pair psuedo'd.  If the apparent depth within
the scene doesn't change when viewed psuedo, all the cues are monocular
and any perceived "depth" is illusory.  This can be particularly amusing
with a classic scene such as a distant mountain range framed by (nearby)
tree branches.  Viewed psuedoscopically, one ends up with a now
apparently miniaturized cardboard-cutout mountain range with very large
tree branches apparently 'behind' it in space!

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)





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