P3D anaglyphs and SI, (3D-Ray, Ray3D & Ron)

[Ray Hannisian <ray@xxxxxxx>]

Ron writes:

> Re:[Daniela reclining in the leaves]...
>> It doesn't look like flat planes to me at all.

To me, her entire left side, (against the background), looks like a billboard.
(A very pleasant billboard, by the way!)

>> I wish everyone could see the amazing, original 2 1/4 and 35mm
>> transparencies in the incredible Hugo de Wijs viewer...

That is my point.  I don't think that the anaglyph did the original
justice EXACTLY 
BECAUSE each eye loses some of the detail to 'round out' the image,
due to color distortions.

>> I must say that I've never seen better in a magazine- have you?

No Ron, I haven't!  This is the best imaging I've ever seen in this format.

>> And, the overall impression left by the magazine is that 3D is
primarily a "gimmick".

> How so? Showing half naked girls is a "gimmick" all by itself (in many
> cases! I say this with the highest regard many of Boris Starosta's nudes).

I shoot and display nudes too.  I wasn't disparaging the subject
matter.  

My point is that most of the images look (to me) like cut-outs, 
which is not the best effect available through stereo photography.  I
think 
that many people will get the impression that this is the best that
this medium can do.

> ..you already admitted that it's a weak medium on tv- I don't think
anything that anyone could have done would have improved it. How could you
have done better?

In anaglyph, I couldn't.  (That realization was when I stopped feeling
as though I had missed an 
important opportunity.)  This was the meaning of my comments about how
some of the most crucial artistic decisions were taken out of the
hands of those who should have made them.    

>>I work in the 'field-sequential' format...

>... I generally don't enjoy the experience on a TV- it works fairly
well, however, projected through a Vrex or demultiplexed projector pair.

Oh yes, TVs have their limitations.  The format, however, is "forward
compatible".  It can be shown on computer screens, in HMDs and in
projection without the annoying flicker.  On a TV, it is a compromise.
 However, it is a much better compromise than video anaglyph, as it
minimizes ghosting, maintains accurate colors and creates clear and
discrete depths.  And, it allows people to have a 'virtual' experience
with equipment that they already own, and an addtional expenditure of
only about $100.

When I can show my work on multi-scan monitors or in projection, it
approaches its full potential.


Ray Zone Writes:

> If the anaglyph were truly a "weak medium" to convey the stereoscopic
> experience it would have died out long ago.  

Certainly it is convenient and inexpensive.  And, for black and white
pairs or
line drawings, it works very well.

> Instead, more anaglyphs (including full-color or 'polychromatic anaglyphs')
> are being produced now than at any other time in history!

Yes, and it is improving all of the time.

I had high hopes for the SI edition.  I enjoyed it!  I have simply reported
that, in my experience, most of the images looked flat, the color
information was
distorted, and I found the glasses fatiguing.

(I spend most of my day in shutter-glasses, and I find them fatiguing too!)


I have the highest regard for both your work and Ron's.  I have no
intention to insult 
anyone on this list or their choice of mediums.

I believe that a discussion of the effectiveness of the SI publication
and video 
was ASKED for.  I have simply stated my observations.


Sincerely,


Ray Hannisian
 
   ====== Ray3D - Stereoscopic Imaging ======
                 ray@xxxxxxxxx
              http://www.ray3d.com
      
                 (970) 963-8474