P3D Re: SI anaglyph

[Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tony Alderson hit the mark:

> 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.
(...)

Put another way, the figures fill more of your field of view when seen in
the magazine, at typical reading distance, than they would if you were
standing where the photographer stood, looking with unaided eyes.  They
are a "blown up" or enlarged part of your normal field of view.  This is
just good old "telephoto" distortion - flattening - familiar in 2D
photography, applicable to 3D. 

(...)
> 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.
(...)

Exactamundo!  These are really big, page filling pictures.  Take any of
your RBT shots or favorite "normal" looking stereos, blow them up to the
size of one or two magazine pages, look at them from only a foot or so
away, and you'll likely see cardboarding too, especially if the subject is
an isolated figure in front of an expanse of ocean or sand.  Like Tony
said, it's got nothing to do with anaglyphs or the quality of the
photographer.  But I am curious, what did Ron say were the focal lengths
involved on the cameras?   Long lenses *would* exaggerate the problem.  I
suspect that may be more the issue in the shot with Estella on horseback,
which is very cardboardy, no matter how you look at it.  Wider angle
lenses and closer shooting position are my notion as to what would have
fixed these things.

Tony also said, in a following post, an the haze of his illness:

> I gotta tell ya, 'cardboarding' has a lot to do with my interest in
> stereoscopy.
(...)
> One is of a fully dressed out Lakota chief, looking over the
> Black Hills. It was on a sampler reel, as I recall, and cardboarded like
> crazy. The other is from the "Alice in Wonderland" clay reels (which I
> still have), of Alice falling down the rabbit hole, and her head is
> stretched like a gooseneck. I loved 'em both.

I can dig you, man.  I feel the same way - deliberate stretch and squash
by a stereo maker who plans for it, or even the serendipitous accidental
effect, are part of the 3D palette - they are where the "artistic
distortion" of reality comes in, if duplicating "reality" isn't your only
idea of good stereo.  But in an SI issue promising that "Estella, Daniella
& Heidi bust out in 3D" (Please, I could write *that* kind of obvious
drool when I was 13, but I was too adult.), the cardboarding effect can
only be seen as a shortcoming.  The readers expect bumps, not planes, and
pay good green for the pleasure - as the editors know so well.

> Now I'll agree, sometimes cardboarding is an error. Sometimes it's
> unavoidable. Sometimes it's just cheap. Sometimes it's what 3D is all
> about.

Yup.  Couldn't agree more.  And sometimes it's an undesirable side-effect
of circumstances.  What is it in this case?

Bruce (My goodness, what a civil debate!) Springsteen

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com