P3D Re: Moderate hyperstereos

[jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gabriel Jacob)]

I wrote:
>>P.S. This makes it fustrating showing anything other than exaggerated
>>     depth to people not used to seeing 3-D images.
>>
>>Gabriel, who loves all forms of 3-D if done properly!

David Lee writes:
>Gabriel,
>
>Who is defining "properly"?
>
>David Lee

Why the judges of course! ;-)

Ok, ok...., seriously? That would take a long post to answer so
I'll give you my short answer (relatively speaking). Ultimately
it would be each and everyone of us! That said, HOW do people
decide what is proper?

The two extremes are basically...,
Some will be ignorant of the  technical details and just know it's
"proper" if they simply like what they see. The technical details
might or might no be correct in this case.
 
For others, they would emphasize the technical elements. I take
the middle stance. The key to proper 3-D for me when breaking the
rules, exaggerating depth, etc....., is KNOWING WHEN to do it. Now
I guess the question is how do we know WHEN to do it!

For me it's a matter of doing it for a REASON and not just for the
sake of it. Sure, one can do it for the sake of it sometimes (example
hypers), BUT when they do it ALWAYS just because they like doing it a
particular way, most people will soon tire of this. As I mentioned
in a previous post, I like a balanced diet! :-)

I think your latest APEC exchange was an excellent example of when
and how to use hyper shots judiciously. Another good example of
knowing when/reason is Jeremy Illingworth's spooky APEC Earthquake
Simulator Test stereoview. For those that haven't seen this 3-D
card, it is 3-D pic of an office with computers falling over and
it is COMPLETELY blurred! Here is also an example where the title
really adds an impact to the presentation (this is to a reference
to the thread awhile back about titles). I wonder how the judges
would have rated it!?! 

Gabriel




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