P3D Re: SI anaglyph

[Tony Alderson <aifxtony@xxxxxxx>]

Ray Hannisian wrote:
> 
> In print, the anaglyph presentation lost enough detail to create
> a strong "card-board cut-out" effect. 

I don't think the cardboarding effect has anything to do with any "loss
of detail" in anaglyphs, but is due to a mismatch of the angles of view
in photography and viewing. (But I don't think there is any inherent
loss of detail in anaglyphs, and I don't think loss of detail leads to
cardboarding. Staircasing or stereo aliasing, perhaps, as the relative
pixels grow, but that's not the same thing.)

We recently had a discussion on this list about perspective, and I'll
admit I also found the text hard to follow. But here is a chance to see
_visually_ what that exchange was all about.

Look at the photo of "Heidi" throwing her hat at the camera. It's a fun
picture, but at arm's length it is cardboarding a bit. But back off a
few feet and it's as round as, well, Heidi. Sure, the image is smaller
in our field of view, but we've made a better match in perspective.

Now, one could argue one should "shoot for the medium" but that's not
easy to do, especially when, as is always the case, there are competing
priorities.

Personally, I think the SI issue was overall pretty good, and won't hurt
3D at all. You notice, BTW, the publishers had a lot less confidence in
anaglyph TV, which seemed reluctantly squeezed into the show for gag
value only. Not even a gimmick, there!

Ray Hannison further commented:
>I have simply stated my observations.

Fair enough. I'm amazed we've had controversy with invective for several
days running! I'm gonna hafta go back to watching wrestling.

I'll have more to say (separately) about anaglyphs and cardboarding.
It's a rainy weekend in LA, and I've got a cold. Forgive me for sharing
my misery.

Tony Alderson