Re: [photo-3d] Re: screen shapes

[Mike Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

JNorman805@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> John writes:
> 
> << Arguments have gone on for decades (centuries?) about the merits of the
>  aesthetics of different screen shapes.  I like a horizontal shape as this
>  approximates closer the human field of vision, and with large screens has
>  some advantages in terms of apparent depth enhancement as a result of
>  peripheral vision effects, but that is just a personal preference. >>
> 
> With all due respect, I disagree.  The reason consumer screens are square is
> because it accommodates both horizontally and vertically oriented full frame
> 35 mm slides (in 2D), without having to compromise on the projected size or
> content of either orientation.  Because I shoot a mix of horizontal and
> vertical slides in 3D as well, I appreciate the flexibility afforded by the

Personally, I use an 8P stereo camera so although I could edit slides to 
be vertical or square, they nominally are wider than they are high.  My FED
(7P) also provides wider-than-high images.  So most of the time, particularly
for a club where it should accommodate 7P/8P as well as 5P images w/o re-zooming
the projector, a rectangular screen could be most appropriate (I've seen many
an image with someone's full-frame image hanging off past the edge of the
screen, although hopefully less of that with the club's new huge rectangular screen).

Mike K.

P.S. - On the other hand, at least once, I've projected "beamsplitter" slides
       made with a stereo adapter, and they're really really vertical oriented. :-)

 

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