More than one approach to 3D and Stereo photography

uuglypher wrote:

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

I can see in both cross eyed versions, which is how I am viewing them, some correct stereo effect in both. The depth is in the correct direction.

The parallel versions seem strangely flat, unlike twin lens stereos when viewed by the wrong process i.e. cross eyed viewing of side by side images, which have a conflicting view to the eyes.

However, though I can make an estimate of real depth with twin lens stereo images, with your versions I have to keep renewing my mind's eye view of them and can not assess depth. To me it could be any figure I try to put on it. The depth is truly suggested but not quantified.

Pointless quotation: "Our West window has all the exuberance of Chaucer with none of the concomitant crudities of the period." Alec Guinness: 'Kind Hearts and Coronets'.