[photo-3d] Luring Rupkalvis

[Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>]

John Rupkalvis said:
>Picky?  Perhaps.  But, only when everyone can agree on the usage of the
>various stereoscopic terms can we discuss these things with each other
>without misunderstandings.

In that case, welcome to Photo3D, John Rupkalvis! :-)

We've had some terrific one-of-a-kind additions to the list this last year
- Sheldon of the USA comes to mind, for example - and now Rupkalvis, who
with long-time P3Ders Zone and Alderson form an Eternal Golden Braid in my
mental pantheon of California stereo mavens.  I first saw those three
names joined in my delightful 3D comics from the 80s.  Now John proves in
a few postings what Ray said of him, that he's one of the unique resources
in our 3D community.

Having greased the skids, John, I have another question about Imax and
Iwerks 3D, and 3D movies in general.  What kind of maximum deviations are
tolerated by the best practitioners in the format - in other words what is
the total depth generally considered permissable in commercial motion
pictures?  An approximate total convergence range, from near point to
infinity, of about 2 degrees has been put forward as the "limit" in
still-3D projection, but I swear that many scenes in "Mark Twain's
America" were well beyond that, without unreasonable strain.  Do the folks
who shoot 3D movies worry about "limiting" depth in the scene?  Have I
asked this querstion understandably? :-)

Springsteen, 66044

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/