P3D Re: PSSP talk: Barriers to Entry

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999
>From: boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)
>.......................
>Someone on this list did tell me once, that in stereo cinematography, it is
>standard to toe-in.  Must have something to do with studio's laziness in
>post processing...

****  I understood it to be because that allows them to use existing mono
cameras without modification. Though modifying a camera provides superior
results, it costs more. I guess it's financial laziness... Is that pre or
post processing?  ;-)



>...................
>About the appropriateness of vertical format to various subject matters.
>He who is hard-pressed to find subjects for vertical stereo: look harder.
>Of course I sometimes struggle with vertical format, even abandon it (like
>when my models are on a bed)!  But for stereo in general, I feel that
>vertical format makes more sense.  I posted this once before: Imagine
>yourself on a flat surface (like standing in any kind of natural terrain).
>Along what visual axis do you get the most sensation of depth, vertical or
>horizontal?  Enough said?  Unless you are standing next to a wall, any
>vertical line is more likely to give you interesting depth.  It is also
>easier to visualize depth along a vertical axis:  since the disparities are
>always horizontal, it is easier to perceive the progression of depth along
>a line that is perpendicular to the disparities.  (Don't ask me why.  It's
>a feeling I have.  Vertigo is visceral.)

*****  I see it with a different analogy and get correspondingly different
conclusions. Using your own example, the greatest input visually is the
horizontal one due to it's horizontal repetition factor between two eyes.
Take two circles, and displace them horizontally and you have an oval that
is wider than it is tall. It is horizontal duplication that produces the
sense of parallax.

Couple that with psychological factors. For whatever reason, most human
beings are FAR more tuned into and aware of horizontally arranged
information. What is significantly above or below the normal line of sight
gets ignored, even if it's technically *in* the field of view. 

Don't believe me? Try leaning out of a second floor window and talking to
some unsuspecting passerby who hasn't noticed your presence. They will look
all around themselves trying to figure out where you are!!! Only later will
they look upwards.

Once while living in Hollywood in a second floor apartment, I heard noises
at night and when looking out the window, saw a bunch of kids trying to
siphon gas from a neigbors vehicle. When I hollered at them, *What the
#@$%!!! are you doing!!!???* they scattered like ants. Several were leaning
on their own car in the center of the street. Others below in the garage
area. Not one of them thought of glancing up at a slight easy angle to see
me. They thought me concealed on ground level somewhere. They got out of
there fast!

Another psychological factor - Try making yourself a helmet that surrounds
your head completely. (use a paper bag for experimentation) Try walking
around with narrow vertical eye slits compared to using horizontal eye
slits. Which one gives you more *vertigo*? Which provides the best *feeling*
of control in the surroundings? For me that would have to be the horizontal
arrangement of view. I could easily ignore not seeing much in vertical
directions while the side to side dimensions would *beg* to be seen as much
as possible.

I agree that very interesting and impressive vertical arrangements are
possible however. I'll take 3D in any orientation!!!

Larry Berlin

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


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