P3D Re: "Too much depth"

[Chris Jones <c.jones@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 23:06 28/10/99 -0600, Bruce wrote:
>
>Isn't the problem of "too much depth" really more about the near limits of
>stereopsis?  "Doubling" of non-fixated objects isn't a problem, in fact
>it's part of the cues for stereo, so that doesn't seem to be the source of
>discomfort.  And "swinging" through greater angles from near to far points
>doesn't seem in itself to be such a big deal either.  I like my theory. 
>Do y'all think it's dumb?

Nope, the problem seems to be that the brain processes stereo information
in more that one way. It's used to using static cues (like those you get in
a stereo photo) for objects more distant than about 2m (the good old 1 in
30 rule). But when you get up close, you don't naturally fuse the left and
right images that way. This is pretty much common sense, since it gradually
becomes less seeing the same object displaced laterally against the
background and more a case of seeing two very different views of the same
object.

For close objects your eyes will use small variations in direction and
focus to enhance the stereo information, which doesn't really matter since
you can only fixate on a small area of vision anyway - you have to move
your eyes to appreciate most close-up objects in their entirety.

The problem is, what do we do about this as far as photography goes? While
we can mimic the way our vision works for distant objects, it's another
thing entirely when we get close up. Maybe there isn't a natural way to
photograph close objects in stereo...

-- 

Chris Jones 
http://www.c.jones.cwc.net
ICQ #41744518
DALNet nick trickydisko
PGP key available on request