P3D Re: hype....eerrrr??

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> Hyper should be relative to human eyeballs (yours or mine?). :-)
> The term seems to be used to refer to "hyper dimensional" suggesting
> "extreme in dimensional effect"

That may be a historical derivation source, but not the "definition"
as I understand it.  My understanding is that an image where the
lens spacing is wider than one's eyes is hyper.  Realist
cameras by default take slightly hyper images (for most people's
eyeballs).  If one uses a base of 12", I doubt there are many
people who have their eyeballs further apart than that (unless
at least one of them is glass.... and I don't think that "counts" :-).

I don't think it a technical requirement for the hyperness
to be noticeable for it to be technically "hyper".  I think
it's not a "yes-no" thing, but a "more-less" thing that can be
interpretted as a "good-bad" thing on an image by image basis.

:-)

> 
> and:"I'm not sure about the stereo interest
> level by themselves in that pair."
> 
> Maybe. I have posted another shot at:
> 
> http://members.home.net/toeppen/bishzoom.jpg
> 
> that zooms in on one other pair of the slides in the set.

That one is MUCH easier on the eyes, but looks flat as a pancake
to me (probably what it looks like in person).  I've Grand Canyon
images I've taken where even a significant hyper of the far wall
still would look flat (just as it does in person).  Just makes such
an image a hyper with no visible effect.  Or "insufficiently hyper" 
to produce the effect wanted.

> The base is longer yet.  This shot could help one choose the best trail
> to take to King's Canyon. None of those passes look especially easy, and
> some are more interesting.
> 
> I fail to see the difference in cropping and zooming.  One is merely

Other than for film grain, resolution and possible f/stop DOF effects, 
there isn't one (assuming the same image results).  Perspective is the
same.

> selecting a rectangular window on the world with each shot.  The ortho

Maybe I'm just too thick headed to understand your point, but it seems to me
that two different concepts seem to be talked about (ortho'ness and 
hyper'ness) as if they were interchangeable, but it doesn't seem that way 
to me.

> effect occurs in both cases.  Wide lenses produce curved images that can
> limit acceptable cropping options. 

If short FL lenses are producing curved images it's the fault of the lens
design (or construction).  I assume you're talking about fisheye images, etc?


> Short lenses produce curved images if not viewed through short lenses.

This shouldn't be the case that I know of.  I only know that it wouldn't
be ortho, meaning that the 3d "depth" will either be exaggerated or
lessened with things looking either squashed or stretched out in the
direction away/toward me.  Is this what you mean by "curved"?


> For an object to have the same angular size when viewed as it did when
> it was taken the same focal length lens must be used for both taking and
> viewing.  This would mean that the 35 mm taking lens on the Realist is
> "best" matched with a 35mm fl viewing lens.  A red button viewer uses 50
> mm fl lenses to view.  This would provide a 30% smaller angular size
> thereby exaggerating the 3d effect.......??? :-)

Yes, but not "curved" that I know of.  But in any case this missmatch
isn't hyper nor hypo due to this fl missmatch.  

Hyper'ness is determined by the distance between the camera lenses while
one aspect of ortho'ness is determined by the matching of camera/viewer fl's
to yield the same view angle.

As far as I know they are independent effects other than they both being
pragmatically related in that the same situation that makes one want extreme
hyperness (very distant subjects) also makes one want to use very long fl lenses
(which will likely make it very non-ortho).

Of course it may be that being non-hyper and non-hypo is a requirement for
"full" ortho rather than just the subset of ortho (matching view angles) that's
usually meant by the term "ortho" in this list (tech-3d would be a different
matter.... :-).

Confusion reigns!!!

Mike K.


P.S. - My CSC Meeting photos web page was almost impossible for me to
       access yesterday afternoon/evening, might have just been something
       in my internet "path" to there, but it seems to be working again nicely this 
       morning, so if anyone wanted to see the pics but couldn't, try again.  :-)



> 
> JT
> http://members.home.net/toeppen/
> 
> 


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