Re: [photo-3d] Re: stereo decline

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

This is an interesting point of view, and there is much to be said for it.
The proof is in the fact that there is a great deal of time parallax in many
film and video images, as proven by simply wearing Pulfrich glasses to view
them.

Only, the very fact that the Pulfrich glasses augments this effect would
indicate that they would be even better if stereoscopic.  Stereoscopic views
are always better when they make use of monocular depth cues, especially
relative motion.  And, scenes with good depth cues, again especially
relative motion will be even more impressive if stereoscopic.

Good proof of this is in the Imax 3-D film "Cyberworld 3-D"  If you take
your viewing glasses off, you will see that there are an abundance of
monocular depth cues (including a lot of movement).  With the glasses on,
however, the total effect is most dynamic.

Also sound, which you mention, can provide important depth cues.  If a sound
follows an object that appears to be coming off the screen, you can see it
come quite a bit closer before it seems to split apart.  "The eyes track the
ears" seems to be proven out by this.

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: <donaldparks@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 2:42 AM
Subject: [photo-3d] Re: stereo decline


>     There have been many recent posts presenting various theories about
reasons to explain the decline of general interest in stereo photography.  I
would like to propose a different way of looking at this decline to
stimulate alternative thinking.
>
>     First a little background.  I was very enthusiastic about taking
stereo slides in the late 1950's and 1960's.  I recall going to quite a
number of 3D movies when they first came out.  My Dad was serious about
taking home movies while I was serious
> about taking 3D slides.  He always put his movie camera on a tripod to
eliminate the annoying hand held camera jiggle that always makes home movies
so hard to view.  Even though the movie camera on the tripod could be aimed
to follow motion or pan a
> wide scene the movies always looked quite flat compared to my 3D slides
because the pictures were being taken from only one perspective.  In the
1980's I had a family of my own to record and decided to get a video camera.
I started to pay more
> attention to how professionals take movies to pick up tricks that would
make my videos look better.  I soon noticed that 2D professional movies
communicate a lot of 3D to viewers due to the motion parallax that occurs
because the camera is often in
> motion as the scene is being shot.  I could do this with my video camera
by moving to one side or the other as I was taking video.  The flaw in this
way to add 3D was the hand held jiggle introduced which was very annoying to
a viewer.  Professional
> movie makers have an expensive array of booms and cameras on wheels or
flying in the air that move very smoothly as the scenes are being shot.  The
technology for providing this smooth motion parallax has been improving
steadily so that now-a-days the
> amount of 3D effect communicated by high budget 2D movies is amazing.
Sometimes it can make you feel almost weightless as the helicopter flys over
the rim of a canyon etc.
>
>      My proposal is that stereo or 3D has not been declining at all, at
least in the movie theater and even on TV.  The 3D communicated is not
conveyed as left and right eye images but as motion parallax information.
The same information reaches our
> brains but the left and right views are time delayed.  Our brains are able
to combine the time delayed motion parallax information so that we can sense
the depth in the scenes we are watching.  It's all done intentionally by
very skilled
> cinematographers who understand exactly how to communicate the 3D
information of a particular scene.  The transmission is so flawless that a
lot of viewers don't even realize they are watching a "3D" movie.  There are
no glasses to wear, no vertical
> misalignment, no ghosting, no conflict between the focus and convergence
of your eyes and no eyestrain headaches.  The stereophonic sound contributes
a whole lot to the 3D effect also.
>
>     I think the amount of 3D in professional movies has been steadily
increasing since the 1950's not declining.  Making 3D movies using a left
and right camera to be projected to viewers wearing polarized or LCD glasses
is extremely complex,
> difficult, expensive and obsolete.  Even when it's done well it doesn't
add much if anything to the show.
>
> I hope you folks don't decide to burn me at the stake for proposing this
viewpoint.  -   Don Parks
>
> Dr. Donald J. Parks
> Mechanical Engineering Dept.
> Boise State University
>
>
>
>
>