P3D Re: Good Old Henry, tra la la la la...

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> OK, you forced me to do it.  What has been pointed out countless times
> here is the lack of many of the other depth cues besides stereopsis:
> (lack of) motion parallax and (fixed) accomodation being two of the
> biggies.  And all the various strange anomalies that come from freezing
> reality in the blink of an eye (specular reflections or lights which are
> visible to one eye but obscured in the other, producing retinal rivalry,
> perfectly frozen ripples in water making it look like plastic, etc.).
> These have all been discussed here numerous times.

You are arguing that stereopsis is only a minor depth cue dwarfed by
your list of other cues?

IMO, stereo photography provides a large jump of realism, and that's
why I like it.  If it didn't, why am I bothering with it?  I'm going
though a lot of fuss and expense for something with so little effect!

Mike K.


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