P3D Re: Prints, Slides & the Rest of Stereo

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999
>From: Bruce Springsteen, provides humorous but somewhat misinformation...
>....................
>But I am calm.  I believe slides will live forever; they are radiant
>and gorgeous and serious photographers will never tolerate their
>demise.  Card making will prosper too - it is blissfully tactile,
>flexible, nostalgic *and* modern, and makes the perfect "gateway drug"
>for hooking new aDDDicts.  Computer-based imaging methods, like young
>"prolific" posters on P3D, sound clever but have eternity to go before
>matching or replacing fine old standards. 

*****  As much as I like to think *young*, an interest in computer 3D
shouldn't automatically identify one as young, just someone who's seen the
future of stereo AND the limitations of older forms thereof... which brings
up the reality that very experienced persons relative to all the traditional
forms of 3D can, do and should be able to understand and partake of the
benefits that digital/computer 3D offers above and beyond the limitations of
the older ways. The assumption some make that anyone interested in computers
must be inexperienced in stereo and therefore young is about as naive as the
assumption that stereo slides are the only form of stereo image worth pursuing.


>........................
>By the way - I have somehow become the coordinator for the *original*
>Stereocard Exhibit/Competition at NSA Green Bay in '99.  The
>discussion about viewers for print competition is most apropos.  I
>would like to hear suggestions as to how the NSA judges could best
>view entries while they are mounted in standing frames (the views, not
>the judges).  I dislike the plastic lorgnettes very much - suggestions
>for reasonable alternatives would be most welcome, on or off list. 
>Seriously.

*****  Seriously? Cross viewable freeviewing cards... With good lighting
conditions. It's the best, least expensive and most universal print form in
existence. Any size works including very large formats. Other forms of
stereo prints exist, and some of them are absolutely great, but they are
anything but universal when the requirement of specially adapted optics and
mechanical devices are imposed.

I completely agree about small plastic lorgnettes though I find them useful
at times.! 

Maybe the viewing area can be equipped with a simple device to assist those
who haven't mastered access to cross viewing on their own steam. Possible
devices include viewing windows (stand here and look at the surface
containing an opening), or small objects to use as focal points for entry to
the right viewing geometry for the eyes. Or only select judges who possess
basic freeviewing skills.



>
>I have come to believe that any grown-up stereo image must be made
>with a solid idea of how it will usually be viewed:  slide viewer,
>projection, Holmes, free-viewing, ortho-phantogram, VR goggles, etc. 
>My impression of a stereo image is dependent on the viewing method
>employed.  For example most "free" viewers are introducing
>considerable stretch into a scene, not seeing what nature invented or
>photographer intended.  (There's no such thing as a "free" view. ;-) )
> Weird lighting, very-non-ortho viewing positions and focal lengths,
>poor reproduction, conversion from format "A" to format "B" and other
>such perversities play havoc with fair evaluation of the stereo
>artist's efforts.  And any such artist who shoots not knowing or
>caring or planning what the likely viewing conditions will do is
>neglecting the ABC's that make stereo *un-flat* photography.  Such
>heedlessness warrants stern discipline, in my uppity opinion.
>
>Your Most Obedient Servant,
>
>Bruce (A chip on my shoulder, a chip in my hair, a chip on the sofa, a
>chip everywhere.) Springsteen
>  

*****  You eloquently sum up the interesting travails of stereo image
presentation. At the same time you unwittingly make a good case for digital
stereo. Only by immersion into that realm and subsequent extraction from
digital formats can you surpass all the other confusion. Your views about
freeviewing seem biased towards the negative, though I surmise by your
comments that you do in fact freeview, you just don't like it or use it very
much. Yet it's the most natural of all the stereo forms. Rightly understood
the supposedly unnatural distortions of stretch and a few other issues are
in fact the most natural of all because they are intimately a part of the
basic geometry of stereoscopy, unimpeded by optics of any sort, and directly
experiential, mentally tactile.

You blithely discard weird lighting, non-ortho and variations of focal
lengths as if they were not at all useful, or that a human brain is
incapable of correct interpretation of images under some of these
conditions. In so doing you discard much of the fun of stereo image making
and viewing. 

Of course an artist has to have some idea of the *intended* viewing method,
and should care about quality of image as well as viewing circumstances.
However that is not to say that any circumstance outside of this original
artistic intention is somehow unqualified as valid stereo.

It is a fact that in the digital realm all these issues can be muted from
the significance you attach to them. Parallax can be modified such that
viewing angles are adjustable for optimum ortho qualities for any desirable
viewing condition. The most common stereo image distortion regardless of
type of image is vertical misalignment, and this too is fixable easily in
digital form far more easily than on any film chip or print, though once
fixed they can again be put onto a film chip or print. 

It is our birthright to be able to freeview stereo images, yet many give up
on basic skill building too early and never realize the full potential that
instant easy freeviewing offers those who achieve a skill at using the
method. Freeviewing is a biological heritage that bridges the technological
gaps and allows full access to stereo imagery regardless of the source of
our images or the processes by which they are presented. (With the notable
exception of large parallel images intended exclusively for very limited
optical devices, unless you like pseudoscopic views) 

Everyone interested in stereoscopy owes it to themselves to gain a minimal
level of proficiency with freeviewing skills. It's a benefit, not a
handicap. It's very much a foundational part of the hobby of stereoscopy and
provides easy instant enjoyment of stereo images under the widest range of
circumstances. Without freeviewing skills, mounting, alignment and related
work on any form of stereo image is like pinning the tail on the donkey
while blindfolded.

Thanks to Bruce for the inspirational chips... and I suggest that digitizing
those otherwise dusty chips might give some of them a new life! :-)

Bye,
Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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