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.
|
|
Double depth - definition
- From: T3D john bercovitz <bercov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Double depth - definition
- Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:59:24 -0800
There were a couple of questions as to what double depth" means. I
looked in the index of the "The World of 3D" by Jacobus G. Ferwerda
and sure enough it's there. So that's your best bet for a good
explanation. If anyone doesn't have the book, contact Harry Zur
Kleinsmiede (101576.2026@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) off list for the latest in
price and availability. If I could only have one book on 3D, this
would be that book.
I'll try a short explanation of my own. If you have too much depth
in a scene, you can increase the separation of the chips until the
nearest object is behind the window. This works fine (in my
experience) as long as you don't have your infinity homologues
significantly more widely separated than the lenses in your viewer.
(It is entirely possible to increase infinity separation. The
lenses of viewers are supposed to be 65 mm apart but the windows of
the mask are on 62.2 mm centers so you can increase infinity
separation from the standard of 63.4 mm all the way up to 65 before
you force divergence of the eyes.)
Another way to do the same thing is to leave the infinity homolgues
at the standard 63.4 mm on center but decrease the mask aperture
separation, by, say, 1.2 mm. You can decrease aperture separation
by doing surgery on the mask or by cropping an equal amount from the
left side of the left aperture and the right side of the right
aperture. This approach is called "double depth".
Both of these methods will put the nearest object behind the window
when there is more depth than allowable under the existing rules
(62.2 & 63.4) in the scene. However, in projection, the former
solution causes divergence and the latter solution lifts the stereo
window off the screen.
Quite possibly I've violated the law of minimum complexity (as
imparted to me by John Dukes) in my explanation. If so, hit me up
for further expansion on the topic or read "The World of 3D".
John B
------------------------------
|