P3D too angry to read

[Tom Deering <tmd@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tony Alderson wrote:

>You use examples of close-up stereography with a Stereo Realist to
>"disprove" the 1 in 30 "rule",

It's certainly easy to do.

>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).

Huh?  Forgive me, but I never said this.  Never once.

>So what have you proved? Perhaps that you do not understand the "rule"?

What has been proven is that people can get too steamed to read what 
has been written.  All that stuff about *requiring* maximum stereo in 
each photo?  Never said that, either.

Rather than post a list of things I have *not* said, I think I'll 
repeat my original point, which has remained the same:  The 1/30 
thing is no "rule", because it's wrong in a wide variety of 
situations. Plain and simple.  Apparently people want to argue side 
issues because the central idea is unassailable.  I don't mind the 
personal attacks, but let's stay on topic.

It's not like I'm the only one that's noticed the problem with the 
1/30 "rule". But why would anyone want to discuss the subject when it 
evokes such a visceral response?  But I did, because I think it would 
be nice if beginners could get the straight story instead of 
superstition.

Cheers,

Tom

http://www.deering.org/curves.html