T3D Stereo Math

[Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just a quick entry:

In my participation in the P3D discussion of stereo math, I was
deflected by others' interest in the terms "optimum", "maximum",
"desirable" and "permissible".  None of that makes sense to me.

I am interested in quantifying the amount of total parallax in a
scene, foreground to background, as a way of talking in specific terms
about some pretty subjective impressions.  If I say something is hot
and you say it is lukewarm, maybe a thermometer can give us a way to
begin to compare our subjective experience, and calibrate how much
stimulus we are creating to another person's response.  I see this as
a possibly helpful avenue to enhanced creativity by achieving, from
time to time,  pre-visualized stereo effects that are not the common
documentarian approach - but funky and conceptual.  I see it also as
an aid (not necessity, please) to training the eye to see stereo depth
with some acumen.

The math in the Bercovitz/Spicer article looks like a good general
system for making measurements of stereoscopic depth, (without getting
into stereogrammetry, thanks!), the 1.2 mm deviation seems like a good
*benchmark* (please remember that word!) - given its intimate
relationship to the very common 35mm 5p format of shooting, mounting
and viewing.  A simple device for summarizing the mathematical scope
of a situation seems like a good non-mathematicians way of accessing
these quantifiable aspects of depth perception and starting to "mess
around" with them.  (I reject rhetoric on P3D that implies such simple
assertions are hostile to intuition, experience or artistic expression
- but I guess that discussion is not appropriate here - my mind is
splitting!)

Bruce Springsteen  



 
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


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