P3D Re: SI anaglyph

[Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce the Man, writes:
>As an admittedly "uneducated" consumer in respect to anaglyphs, I am
>challenged and fascinated by the comments of Gabriel and Tony and others
>who've really made some study of this format. 

Gee Bruce, your not "uneducated" in respect to anaglyphs, cause the
geometry is exactly the same! A nimble minded Escher student like you,
can teach me quite a few tricks! 

>Does the infinity separation in printed anaglyphs ever correspond to the
>average interpupillary distance, thereby setting infinity at zero
>convergence?  Can it?

I don't see why it can't. Is this a trick question!?! ;-)

>If not, then all convergences will be greater than in orthostereo, making
>ortho viewing by any other adjustments - page distance or image size or
>whatever - impossible, right? 

If I understand the question correctly, I would say it is possible.
Increasing the image size, would change the convergence angle.

Even if you couldn't, it still would be possible to achieve ortho, if the
image doesn't have any infinity points in the image. For example, if the
background is only 6 feet, then there is no need to set infinity
(background) to zero convergence.

>If those convergences are all greater than in "reality", by the theory as
>I inderstand it you then have the "near" form of frustum deformation,
>which has a flattening effect on the depth, right?

I think so.

>Is this likely to be visible and a part of the flatness problem with
>anaglyph?

Yes, it would be visible, or should I say the 3-D would be invisible. ;-)

>Is it inevitably an effect of all print anaglyphs?

No.

>Illuminate me, brothers.

This discussion has either illuminated ALL of us, or has sucked us,
(illumination and all) into the proverbial black hole!

Brother Gabriel