Re: [photo-3d] Re: Suitable subjects for 3d....

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

This gets back to the old argument of abstract vs. realistic art.  I, (and I
believe, a lot of people) feel that there is room for both.

An example in conventional flat motion photography: time lapse images.  I
don't think that anyone seeing these would feel that they are in any way
realistic.  Yet, I find most of them to be very beautiful, and this is the
reaction I get from others as well.

An extended example of this is in the Imax (flat) film, "Chronos".  The time
lapse imagery, in my opinion, is superb.  My only complaint is that it
should have also been in 3-D.

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rory Hinnen" <Rory.Hinnen@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] Re: Suitable subjects for 3d....


> Abram Klooswyk wrote:
> <snip my own comments about water, people & stereo>
> >
> > Since Koo Ferwerda is no longer around to answer this, I might
> > say something in defense.
> >
>
> Please, don't misunderstand. I've been very experimental with my new
> toy. I was surprised by the statement when I first read it, but as I
> worked through more of the book, I came to realize Mr. Ferwerda's
> emphasis is accurate recreation of the stereoscopic environment.
>
> With that as a criteria, I might have to agree that water, movement &
> people could be poor subjects. The aspect of freezing time becomes very
> obvious, I think more so than in still photos, and in fact /time/
> becomes the subject, rather than the objects in the picture or the
> stereo effect.
>
> .r.
>
>
>
>