P3D On Deering/Themelis and rules

[Tony Alderson <aifxtony@xxxxxxx>]

That's all I can stands, I can't stands no more! --Popeye

Tom, old pal, in your obsessive determination to expose Themelis for the
colossal egotist he is (in many ways a noble mission) you have merely
demonstrated your own narrow-minded and arrogant egotism
(unintentionally, I'm sure, but still a grand social service).

You use examples of close-up stereography with a Stereo Realist to
"disprove" the 1 in 30 "rule", yet in a later post you explain how the 1
in 30 rule does not apply to stereo cameras with a fixed base (such as
the Realist). So what have you proved? Perhaps that you do not
understand the "rule"? Perhaps that you have never bothered to actually
read or understand anything George has written, beyond his "imagined"
"insults" to your "meglomania?" Perhaps that your only goal is to nail
the "Doctor"? How can you call him "math-phobic"? He's an engineer, fer
cryin' out loud! He probably does more math every day than most of us do
in a year!

Don't you realize that your example of close-ups with the Realist is the
same as the advice to keep your subjects (when shooting with a
Realist-format camera) between f8 on the depth of field scale? Of course
you do! You've said as much! So what if this guide doesn't apply to any
and all situations of stereography? George never pretended as much, nor
did the guys he got this suggestion from. What's wrong with an easy
guide like a depth of field scale on a Realist? You think we need a
computer to take pictures with a camera where most of the variables are
invariable? Seton Rochwite never thought so, that was the whole point of
the Realist system.

Your advocacy of MAOFD as a universal formula to solve the problem of
interaxial choice reveals a profound misunderstanding of the goals of
stereography. (Not to mention a misunderstanding of human behavior.) Our
goal is not to solve formulas in art, nor is the goal to completely fill
the available stereo deviation. The goal is make a pleasing stereo
image. This may or may not fill the "maximum on film deviation." George
is right, the numbers are meaningless outside of a narrowly defined
viewing situation. Your mania for numerical precision has blinded you to
the meaning of the parameters you are calculating. (This is not to say
the depth-range equation is not useful, it just doesn't answer the
pertinent question.)

You need to get over your compulsive hatred for Themelis and re-examine
the principles and nature of stereography. May I suggest you take a walk
around the block, climb a mountain, acquire a little humility, then go
back and re-read, nay, STUDY, the recent comments of Abram Klooswyk on
angles of view? Stop thinking about "maximum devation" and start
thinking about the SHAPE OF THE STEREO FIELD.

George, you do this too. Don't anyone take these comments as a partisan
polemic on behalf of Themelis. That my diatribe was sparked by a mad
message from Tom is a mere accident of history. George is equally at
fault for this hillbilly feud. I like and respect both of these guys,
but their adolescent sniping is getting really aggravating. IMHO, the
problem with these two is that they are too dang much alike; especially
in their bad qualities.

If I have destroyed my friendships with my comrades by this post, if I
have burned my bridge to P3D by the bluntness and rudeness of this
message, so be it. (I hope not, but one must bear the consequences...) I
can always spend my time with Art Bell if I want absorb pre-pubescent
nonsense. Grow up you two. Do yourselves and and all the rest of us a
big favor and grow up! Stop escalating! Who do you think you are?
Wheatstone and Brewster? Kaiser Wilhelm and Czar Nicolas? You want to
embroil us all in a war? PEACE brothers!

Tony "It Takes One To Know One" Alderson