Re: [photo-3d] Slide projection

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Regarding viewing times.  This should really be irrelevent.  But isn't.

In a theoretically perfect stereoscopic slide show or 3-D motion picture,
the limit should be determined by the subject material, storyline, purpose,
etc., no different than from flat material.

Realistically, however, I doubt that such a slide show or movie has ever
been made.  Nearly all (probably all) of the stereoscopic material I have
ever seen has contained (nearly always avoidable) errors that resulted in
eyestrain.

Two slides that are parallax-mismatched, or even one slide that is out of
register is too much.  If anyone ever took enough care to insure that there
was zero eyestrain throughout, a 3 or 4 hour epic motion picture would be
comfortable to view.

About the best that I have seen, was about a 20 minute slide show from
Australia, a few years ago.  It was a compilation of the works of several
different stereo photographers.

Yet the editing was such that my eyes felt relaxed, even refreshed
afterwords.  It can be done.  Good stereoscopic editing skills should be
taught to everyone who owns a stereo camera.

JR
----- Original Message -----
From: <dougorama@xxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:15 PM
Subject: [photo-3d] Slide projection


> As a neophyte 3d'r, I am concerned about these headaches, nausea and
> whatnot asc w/ viewing 3d images. Presuming the slides are mounted
>  "perfectly," which of the following would be LEAST jarring to the
> audience?:
> 1) Dissolve between two 3d images
> 2) Fade to black, then fade in next image
> 3) One image to next, with quick black transition between{such as a
>    one projector 2d show}
>
> Also... would a practical limit for viewing be about 20-30 minutes?
> Slide projection is a must: Viewers are impractical for my purposes.
>
>
>
>
>
>