P3D Re: PSSP talk: Barriers to Entry (Pt. 1)

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 
>From: "Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>..................
>The real "barrier to entry" today is that a standardized stereo system 
>does not exit!  The R-mount was great at its time but it is running
>out of steam in the 50 years that followed its inception.  Still, fine
>for many people and many interests.

*****  This may not be a barrier. It could be a blessing. It's kind of
special that 3D has so many different forms. I'm not sure I want the variety
to disappear in some compromised universal system that obliterates options
arbitrarily. There is blessing and strength in diversity and of all the
communication mediums in existence, stereo is one of the richest of all!

If beginners get the chance to see the whole thing in perspective (and
hopefully in stereo perspectives too!) early on, the inherently large
diversity should help to *invite* instead of pushing people away. There is
something in that diversity of methods and ideas to attract widely different
personality types. The real boundary is the lack of this wider perspective.
Without it, the beginner can easily be intimidated, like being blindfolded
in an unfamiliar room full of furniture. Some few always see that as a
challenge and need nothing more, but others simply need to understand the
wider picture, take the blindfolds off. Like learning that the noises at
night aren't automatically monsters about to eat you...

The usefulness of the R-mount is bound up in the need for careful alignment
of two images, a universal stereo issue. It helps to not have to repeat your
efforts to create alignment every time you show your pictures. If other
systems in the future can provide this function in a more streamlined way,
great. If not, some system of alignment will still have to be followed. It
doesn't really seem that the R-mount will go away until slides themselves go
away.


>
>Calling the Realist mount a barrier to entry is negative and plain wrong.  
>So, let's say it is a barrier to entry.  What should we do?  Hide it from 
>beginners?  Burn our Realist cameras?  Ask RBT to STOP making R-mounts?

*****  In defense of Boris' theme, I don't think calling it a barrier is
either negative or wrong. He's raising a valid issue. It can in fact be a
barrier. Maybe it doesn't *have to be* a barrier, but that's sort of the
point of the talk!



>............
>The most common question of those trying their hands in single or
>twin camera stereo is "how much should I shift"?  What should we do
>with those people?  Throw an Excel spreadsheet in their faces and 
>confuse the living sh-t out of them, or just tell them, "try 1/30...
>that's a starting point"?  A starting point, that's what it is.
>Let them figure out "the rest of the story" later...

*****  It seems anything with numbers can be confusing! That's a basic
problem with the 1/30 rule to start with. It's numbers! Explaining a number
based rule inevitably leads to a spreadsheet solution to understanding
things. This is recommended reading but it shouldn't be required of
beginners. By the time they read the formula they should have images in
their own mind from their own experiences that lets them understand the
formula and how it's used.

As a starting point, talk about weight shifting. Talk about observing the
viewfinder as you shift and learning to feel the different vantage points.
After all, it's a very familiar feeling we are talking about! It's the
location of your own eyes. You can literally see the equivalent of On Film
Deviation by simply watching the viewfinder. In 2D it hasn't mattered beyond
basic composition rules. Now in 3D, it's an ever-present clue waiting to be
seen and used. *Practice* seeing the two perspectives both through the
viewfinder and by rocking the head back and forth, or alternately covering
each eye while observing a scene.

Talk about triangles. They don't require math, yet are geometrical figures.
One can visualize a triangular relationship far easier than calculating how
many inches across, the base of that triangle actually measures. You start
with the triangle of normal, comfortable near object observation. Then to
the loss of depth discernment for distant objects and it's much narrower
triangle. Extrapolate the normal triangle to larger or smaller scales and
they get the whole idea. No math, no numbers other than counting two eyes
and two pictures...

You can expand from there with the example of what happens to that triangle
when you observe something close up. Encourage beginners to explore the many
different triangles that are common to normal experience. Let them see for
themselves why and how the different ways of seeing stereo images work or
don't work. That's active learning.

(continued later)
Larry Berlin

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


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