[photo-3d] Exhibition section - 3d conversions

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

ONe of the images in the Cascade digital section was apparently a 3d
conversion (Las Vegas Girl) of a flat source image (a pencil drawing, it
appeared to me).    This image, and the immediately preceding discussions
on CSC2000 and 3Dsalon lists (Red Ant and Exhibition Sections), bring to
mind several topics for discussion regarding 3d conversions as possible
entries into a separate PSA exhibition section:

1. Are there enough people doing 3d conversions from flat art (either for
fun or profit), that would merit a separate exhibition section?  (Does it
matter?)

(I suspect there may be less than a dozen people doing conversions.  Some
do them just for fun.)

2. Would the 2d source images of the entries have to be made by the entrant?

(I would hope not.  3d conversion is fun and challenging precisely because
you are not _intimately_ familiar with the 2d and 3d details and general
nature of the pictured scene)

3. I consider 3d conversion to be much more craft than art.  Does this make
such images ineligible for PSA exhibition?

(I don't think so.  WARNING: we may get into a discussion defining art vs.
craft, and how much already famous/typical PSA images exemplify one or the
other or both!)

4. How does one judge the merits of a 3d conversion??  Talk about getting
into unknown territory!

4.b  The 3d quality of a conversion and its creation difficulty depend on
the final image size and resolution - which can be quite variable.  Knowing
this, should conversions be judged as presented in their final printed form
and size, or in some standardized format like stereo slide?

When I first discovered 3d converted images, I was disgusted!  I thought
conversions were bad for the public's perception of true stereoscopic
images - Oftentimes the conversions are commercially published, and thus
are the most visible ambassadors of "3d" imaging.  And usually they are not
anywhere near as satisfying as a true stereoscopic image.

Since then I have learned that in commercial situations, doing a conversion
can be the only solution.  Additionally, a well done conversion _does have_
stereoscopic utility.  For example, if I do a 3d conversion of a NASA
photo/view onto the Space Shuttle cargo bay (while it is in orbit), I can
communicate to my audience an understanding (my understanding) of the three
dimensional structure of the shuttle that they may not have, and that they
would not be able to obtain just from viewing the flat NASA photo.

Assuming that exhibitions are an impetus to improving one's art, a section
for 3d conversion may help to improve the practice of that particular art,
which would be a good thing for stereo in general.

Also, an exhibition of conversions would underscore the differences between
3d conversion and true stereoscopic imaging.  This might help the public to
understand that there are these different forms of 3d.

So I have come around 180 degrees on conversions: I am advocating their
exhibition!

Boris

P.S. Any further posts/replies to this topic should not go to CSC2000.

- What is natural and what is beautiful are, in their purest state,
- indistinguishable.
-                                     - David Bayles & Ted Orland
-                                       from the book _Art & Fear_

Boris Starosta, big chief             boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Dynamic Symmetry, LLC                 http://www.starosta.com
usa - 804 979 3930                    http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase