Re: [photo-3d] The Stereoscopic Society Annual Competitrion

[Paul Talbot <list_post@xxxxxxxxx>]

"David W. Kesner" wrote:

> Can Bob or anyone else tell me how Dennis Sedgley achived what
> he did on his slide "Fly Agaric"? This is what appears to be a
> macro image of agaric mushrooms, but what I don't understand
> is how he was able to get an infinty background in without too
> much deviation?

[later]
 
> Now we know HOW he took the image. Can anyone expalin why
> there isn't an excessive amount of deviation in this image?

Can you tell us where to see this image so we have a clue what
you are talking about?  ;-)

Not having seen the image, I would ask "What is in the background?"
>From the description Bob A. passed along, it sounds like it could
be sky...but you probably would not be asking if that were the case.

I can say that I had the same reaction as you are now when I visited
Sam Smith in Calgary a couple years ago, and saw an image he had made.
It was a bug or plant right in front of the camera, in a woodsy setting.
Although "infinity" was not present, there were very distant trees in
the scene.  I was amazed there was no discomfort viewing.  Sam said he
thought it was because of the gradual depth...which made no sense to
me, because my impression was that there was a large z-axis gap between
the near objects and the distant trees; not what I would call "gradual."

I can also say that I have a notion that Abram Klooswyk has alluded to
situations in which more than the normal amount of deviation can be
tolerated.  (And I'm thinking there was something other than double
depth mounting...which I've yet to make any sense of.)  But I'm light
years behind Abram in my understanding of stereo, so I won't even make
an attempt to try to explain further.  (And he'll probably tell me I'm
imagining such a notion, anyway.)

Paul Talbot