P3D Re: "Too Much Depth"

[Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>]

In the sober light of long contemplation, I have decided that my intuition
that loss of fusible matter in near range stereo, while a fact to some
degree (depending on subject matter), is not a significant cause of the
discomfort of "too much depth".  So I am still befuddled about what this
shibboleth of the stereo cognoscenti really means.  Abram points out that
in many circumstances (NASA stereos, sudden paddleballs, some scenes with
continuous depth, clever Pat Whitehouse transitions, so on) the extremes
of deviation may be reasonably well accepted by the eyes.  So what is the
problem with too much depth exactly?  What makes for the discomfort, when
it does occur, and what facilitates the exceptions to the rule?  This is
one of the four or five recurring stumbling blocks for the beginner (with
such perennials as What is the window?  What is stretch?  How far apart do
I put my cameras?) from what I can see, and an area that is partly
aesthetics, partly measurable fact, as Abram has also wisely said. 

In my example of the angry man with gun, I imagine having not too much
trouble fusing the barrel end (as Abram said), a great deal of trouble
fusing any part of the barrel and arm (a case of my 100% rivalry theory),
no problem fusing the face of the man, and after some probably noticeable
and perhaps mildly uncomfortable exercise in the eye muscles to align for
infinity, no problem fusing the moon.  I don't expect to see all at once,
and I expect non-fixated objects to be doubled as in reality.  In ortho
seat, is this an example of the "rule", or an exception to the "rule"?  Or
is it purely a matter of taste?

Bruce (Relax, it's just parallax!) Springsteen 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com