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.
<-- Date Index --> <-- Thread Index --> [Author Index]

Re: Computer Compositing


  • From: T3D john bercovitz <bercov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: Computer Compositing
  • Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 13:09:00 -0800

Bill Stratemeyer wrote:
> I will redo a new test with more parallax.  And set the infinity
> spacing to 65 mm.  Maybe now just 2 objects one wire frame and 
> one solid.  Say the Brick, both objects in the same orientation 
> viewed square on and several degrees above. Or would it be 
> preferable to modify the "rectangular parallelpiped 8-)" object 
> so that there are no right angles.

[As far as my squawking about keystoning due to crosseyed viewing: 
got to take that with a grain of salt.  If you view the screeen 
from far enough back, the keystoning is negligible.  I suppose in 
an experiment it's good to eliminate as many sources of error as 
possible so I'd still advocate parallel viewing, and ~65 mm to 
infinity.]

I guess I would vote for a glass (wireframe) brick.  If there's 
enough distortion, I think one has to perceive the brick as no 
longer being squared up.  Both head on and at the angle you showed 
it would be nice.  Jim C is really the expert of course.

What is the viewing distance supposed to be with your pairs?  I'm 
able to get as close as maybe 22" from the screen with my computer 
glasses on.  I can change the size of the pair but I need to know 
what angle they should subtend to do that.

John B


------------------------------