Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D
|
|
Notice |
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
|
|
Re: [photo-3d] Re: Newbie question-near point distance
- From: "John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [photo-3d] Re: Newbie question-near point distance
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:19:54 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael K. Davis" <zilch0@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 1:01 AM
Subject: [photo-3d] Re: Newbie question-near point distance
(snip-snip-snip-glip)
> >...I am
> >sure you agree that there is room for both philosophies
> >in photography.
>
> Can John Rupkalvis agree?
There were so many snips and quotes from each of us in the original of the
above posting, that I began to lose track of number of insert arrows and who
they belonged to; whether we were being quoted in or out of context,
whatever. No matter. There is room for all philosophies, and each stereo
photographer should be encouraged to work in whatever form he/she feels
comfortable.
However, when addressing others, especially "newbies", it should be pointed
out that particular styles of working are just that. No one should feel
that a complex methodology is necessary for all, or even nearly any stereo
photography unless the practitioner prefers to work that way.
While attending stereo exhibitions, I have several times heard comments from
non-stereo photographers to the general effect of: "That stereo photography
is so beautiful, I wish I could do that. But, the technology is so complex,
I am sure that I could not begin to understand it". Potential new stereo
photographers are being scared off by the impression that they have to be
rocket scientists to enjoy it as a hobby or profession.
Such things as choice of stereo base can usually be made by simple
observation. By simply moving one's head laterally while viewing a scene
you are about to photograph stereoscopically, you can see parallax shift,
and whether there are partial occlusions that would lead to retinal rivalry
or other problems. Other factors, like different focal lengths, and their
relationship to stereo base, can be deduced from experience. There are
times when it is not necessary to change the base when changing focal
lengths, other times when a different base for a different focal length is
advantageous depending upon the characteristics of the subject.
If the amount of parallax were the only consideration (it most certainly is
not), then you could say that parallax is proportional to the stereo base
and also the focal length. When ortho stereo is important, such as in
certain scientific photography, architectural photography (only when it
requires scaling), or the creation of originals for scanning in to
CAD/CAM/CAE or other CGI type work, then by all means do the calculations.
But, when your goal is to make images that are esthetically pleasing, feel
free to break the rules if the resulting images are going to be more
interesting. Just make sure that you observe the necessity for avoiding
eyestrain.
JR
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|