A Wyoming Summer view

2Wayne,

To answer your question, my viewing of your image pairs was by crossed gaze.

I completely understand your very well stated position that: “... you must have some areas at the sides that are not visible on the other side(s). Either they at the top, or the bottom of the rectangular frame.” I do, however, disagree with your assumption that that position is uniformly accepted as “...standard throughout the Stereo community.” It is an understandable misconception, the majority of traditional hobby and avocational 3D photographers having based their practices upon a body of mutually reinforcing, long-held traditional concepts and practices.

But here is one of the harder nuts to crack: I agree that, for all viewers of 3D imagery of various sorts “the idea is realism”. However, I have serious concerns with the idea that there is uniform agreement on what constitutes “reality” in the illusion upon which we all rely...or, for that matter in ANY illusion. No two able binocular viewers perceive any illusion identically, nor to the same degree in its major, functional, illusory aspects.

An excellent example is ...with no intent to be beating a dead horse....the concept of “the frame”. You want reality? Well...THERE IS NO FRAME around our 24-7 perceptions of our personally perceived illusory 3D views of our surroundings in general, nor, specifically, around our 3D view of any selected and foveated point of detail. Close details appear closer...sometimes startlingly so...to the viewer, and distant details sometimes more distant than expected. Absent a frame, what there is in reality, however, is a gradual diminishment of resolution of details at progressively greater distances from our retinal foveae toward our peripheral vision. The “reality” of our quotidian use of the depth perception illusion is that regardless of where we decide to foveate, there will be no disparity of corresponding detail points so disparate as to result in visual confusion. And .... there certainly will be no non-corresponding details bunched up against one-or-another limb of a ... FRAME!

The emergence, however, of the growing industry in the realm of“virtual reality” is evidence of awareness of the need to pursue concepts of “reality” as a “moveable feast” ...one that, rather than defending against transgression of traditional norms, , pragmatically embraces redefinitions and new conceptualizations.

You are, understandably, comfortable and secure in your attitudes and perceptions concerning stereography. However, your evident denial of the possibility of alternative approaches and principles is, well....unrealistic.

Turbguy1 wrote:

Yes, really.

it's obvious that with a rectangular frame, and a scene with receding elements, you must have some areas at the sides that are not visible on the other side(s). Either they at the top, or the bottom of the rectangular frame. The recognized "standard" throughout the Stereo community is to keep the closest element(s) that intersect the frame, at or behind the frame's window. I know, standards can be broken, but the idea is realism.

Perhaps making the frame different helps?

Wider borders with increased spacing between views.

Here's the view close to your adusted window setting with the same border.

Above with stereo window position adjusted behind the closest elements.

Now the missing elements at the sides are now ahead of the frame rather than behind. Which one is more realistic, as if you were looking at a stereo scene though a window?

As for misalignment, except for a blade of grass or two that moved between shots, there is none in this image. Unless you consider the missing side elements ahead of or behind the window as "misalignment"??

BTW, how are you (what method) viewing these??