P3D Re: PHOTO-3D digest 3178

["ZEXIAN SHEN" <z.shen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oleg Vorobyoff wrote:

I would support 2D as follows.  2D is in fact the great invention that
enables us to make sense of the complexity of the world.  A 2D image
does contain the z information, abeit as a projection, and that is
precisely its strength.  Each 2D image is, in effect, a map of a piece
the world.  And well devised maps can make information easier to
digest.  Take topographic maps, for example.  The plaster topographic
relief models found in national park visitor centers are interesting,
but I have never found them suitable for planning a hike.  I always
needed a topographic map to get a practical sense of distance,
steepness and other pertinent features.  In this case 3D is a step
backwards in intelligibility, not to speak of convenience.
***************************************************************************

Actually, the real world is 3 dimensional and an image of the world is
supposed to be 3 D too. Therefore, in fact, an images is not  a map of piece
world but a real reflection of the piece world. The developments of 3 D
images are more complicated than stereophonic developments. However, now the
technologies of 3 D has reached a new level of beating 2 D images: that is,
there are not only the natural, beautiful  and  convenient strengths of 2 D
images  but also the stronger 3 D effects of the traditional stereo pairs in
the new autosteroscopic images. Of course, there is a long way to go for 3 D
images to beat 2 D images, but I think 3 D is a new trend, especially in the
new coming centure.

Jason Shen





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