Re: [photo-3d] Anaglyph Aerials

[Gabriel Jacob <3-d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John A. Rupkalvis writes:

>These look great!  I especially liked the one of the San Bruno mountain
>range.

Thanks John!

>   Did you compose that when you shot it, or did you crop it later?

Yes I did crop it after shooting it..

>I feel that the importance of observing the stereo window rules is relative
>to the subject matter.  Stereoscopic imaging is very subjective, and I find
>this to be an excellent example.  If the entire image had been pushed behind
>the window, the horizon topography would have had too wide a parallax
>separation.  The image as it is composed is, I feel, the optimum for the
>subject.
>
>I am wondering what some others think about this.   Comments from anyone
>else?

Sorry for quoting so much of John's post, but I wholeheartedly agree
with his statements. I'm very keenly aware of the stereo window and
use it often enough to full advantage and sometimes even accentuate
or seemingly obliterate it!

Still, having said that, sometimes I totally disregard it, especially with
anaglyphs. By overlapping the images diligently,  ghosting can be
reduced. This comes at the cost of the stereo window but sometimes
you have to pick the lesser of two evils. Even when there is no
perceptible ghosting I will overlap an image with disregard to the
window, especially in portrait shots. There I overlap for the eyes or
face area. This is because even when there is no noticeable
ghosting, the area of interest (eyes and general face area) looks
better stereoscopically in my opinion.

On a postive note I have to say the quality of analyphs over the last
few years has improved tremendously. Until very recently most
anaglyphs that I saw in print or on the internet totally disregarded
not only the stereo window but also overlapping the images
properly.

Gabriel


 

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