[photo-3d] Re: again those figures!!!

["sergio baldissara" <winter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm back, and I must apologize about my misleading words.
2° is intended in projection (or in enlargement) as the maximal 
divergence of the beams from homologous points. Trigonometrically
2° 
subtend 0.035, a little more than 1/30 of overall width.
Like any physiological parameter <2° is just a guideline, in the 
sense that greater mismatches have proven to be disturbing for most 
people.
Usually 1.5°-1° (1/40 or 1/60 of width) is VERY impressive and 
there's no reason to challenge the fusion power of the audience.
In my previous postings I just warned against absolute figures: in 
literature we find 1.2mm as the max mismatch for 135 film.
This can be true for full frame 24x36 slides, but for Nimslo pairs it 
would mean 1/15 of width!
Sergio
     
--- In photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Oleg Vorobyoff" <olegv@xxxx> wrote:
> Sergio Baldissara wrote:
> >I repeat maximinum (not optimal) separation is about
> >1/30th of horizontal lenght (say about 2° parallax).
> 
> Sergio said he would be away, but maybe someone else can clear up 
my confusion.
> Is there some definite physical or physiological basis for the
2° 
maximum, or is
> that just a guideline?  After all, most of us can easily fuse the 
printing in a
> book a foot away - that is a full 12° of crosseyedness (pardon
the 
technical
> jargon).
> 
> Oleg Vorobyoff