More than one approach to 3D and Stereo photography

Hi, Tony,

You state:

”The result is that what works for me when making my own images, may well not work for another viewer.

Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with your terms and abbreviations and work mainly, as an empiricist, by trial and error.”

I am in total agreement on all points; there is no sense in disbelieving what our own eyes and mind perceive, no in disbelieving others reporting differing perceptions!

Those terms and abbreviations are simple codes for the several hundred possible disproportionate transformations and reminders to me as to the particular geometric transformation used to accomplish the desired disparities in the right-eye image. My process for deciding on an approach to any particular image is first to decide upon the appropriate  direction of depth recession (DR) to emphasize by promoting detail size recession(DSR) in that direction. There invariably turn out to be - if I may mix a metaphor - “more than one way to skin a 3D conversion”. 
I am also continually aware that the 3D illusion, like all illusions, is not perceived identically by any two viewers! Ernst Gombrich’s book “Art and Illusion” contains many illuminating perspectives on the psycho- physiological aspects of visual “perception”, on of the most trenchant of which (IMO) is that of “guided projection”, also termed “the viewer’s burden”.

With all this in mind, I have prepared another set of two 3D conversions , each arranged for viewing by both parallel and crossed gaze, and am most curious as to your take on them.

And I am wishing a most happy and prosperous New Year to you, my friend!

Dave