Re: [photo-3d] Digest Number 311

[Olivier Cahen <o_cahen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	I do not agree on your criteria. These do not prove that you actually
see in depth. The criteria developed by the Stereo-Club Français are
more severe: we have a stereo image made of a few rings; one among them
is not linked to any other, and one of them is not round. It is not
possible to find which of them is not round or not linked if you do not
see in depth, and it becomes obvious if you do.
	This image can be seen on the website of the Stéréo-Club Français (the
French stereoscopic society),
www.cnam.fr/hebergement/scf//projet/technique.html












> Message: 17
>    Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 02:15:28 EDT
>    From: KenDunkley@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: The 3-DVG effect
> . . . . . . . . . . .
> The detection criteria are straightforward. You have detected the 3-DVG
> effect when you can answer "yes," unequivocally, to all three of the
> following questions:
> 
> 1. Is it giving you the clearest and sharpest picture you have ever seen bar
> none? Switch back and forth between the device and your normal view of the
> observed picture to ascertain this. (This is cause by the well known
> squinting effect)
> 
> 2. Can you look all the way into a good scenic picture (like, out to
> infinity)? If you have trouble here, increase your viewing distance by three
> feet and try again. Also, try looking at smaller magazine photos.
> 
> 3. Does the picture appear to be truly three-dimensional (i.e.,
> stereoscopic)? If you examine a scenic picture containing trees, foliage, or
> flowers you should be able to distinguish the apparent difference in visual
> depths of small individual elements of the picture such as leaves on a tree
> or flowers in a garden.
> 
> It should appear unequivocally stereoscopic though not identical to images
> from normal stereo pairs. Direct comparison can easily be made by "free"
> viewing a color stereoscopic pair versus the 3-DVG viewing of one of the dual
> images.