Re: [photo-3d] House of Wax / why 3d

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oleg Vorobyoff" <olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] House of Wax / why 3d



> ...The viewer's task is to gain
> basic comprehension of each slide as quickly as possible.  My guess is
> that it would take the viewer much longer to step through the 3D set
> than the 2D set...

> Oleg

Could be.  As I said before, it is very subjective.  With my example of the
scenic view, it takes longer to visually scan and absorb all of the detail
that is there in the stereoscopic view, primarily because it is enjoyable to
do so.

Now, let's take an example of a reverse situation.  Let us say that the only
goal is to understand the details.  For an example, let's take some complex
structure that we are going to work on, like a fully accessoried automobile
engine.  A flat picture would reveal that there are a lot of cables and
hoses going all over the place, intertwinned over and under each other.  We
would have to take the time to visually trace each one, possibly with the
aid of a "pointer" such as a pencil, to find out what went from where to
where.  Even then, the result would be somewhat ambiguous - we would not be
absolutely sure if a particular wire was routed above or below another or
another part if the crossover point were occluded by something else.

Now, if the same image were in stereo, we could instantly see what went
where, what crossed over or under what, etc.   Also, we would be a lot more
sure of what we observed.   I think that it would take a lot more time to
analyze the flat picture than the stereoscopic one.

As far as flipping through a stack of prints, of course this can be done
much more quickly than through a stack of stereo slides, which you probably
have to put in a viewer or projector to see with any detail.  But this is
not a fair comparison.  You could flip through a stack of prints much
quicker than a stack of flat, monoscopic 2 x 2 slides as well.

Comparing similar items, it would probably take about the same amount of
time to go through a stack of stereo slides as a stack of mono 2 x 2's.
Also, if you were wearing stereo glasses, it would probably take about the
same amount of time to go through a stack of flat prints as a stack of
anaglyph or stereojet prints.  Then again, maybe not.  Since the stereo
prints would be more interesting, you probably would go slower.  Lots to
consider.

JR


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/