I consider ortho viewing to be a myth. When I look at a scene, I do not
see the same image that I will see if I produce a 3d image of the scene
on film. My eyes can only focus on one object at a time, whereas on
film I can put many objects to be in focus at the same time, as is the
case in most of my 3d photographs. My eyes can only cover, (sharply),
less than a 2 degree field of view. The millions of 3d photographers
shooting realist format 3d, in most cases have never seen their images,
as ortho images, as most viewers do not contain, 'ortho' fl viewing
lenses. Do Holms, 3d card viewers present ortho images when they are
used are used, I don't think so.

I wish Bill G would present some of his, self proclaimed, great 3d
images to an unbiased few of us,so we could get an unbiased view as to
whether they are great or not so great. Seeing could be believing. Bill
have never explained to us, what is the use of producing high resolution
3d images, if the high resolution image can not be seen by our eyes.

DON

Hi Don, great to see ya active on the MF boards again!

> I consider ortho viewing to be a myth.
>

wow, thats odd, its one of the few things ever 3d enthusiast agree upon..... well, I guess
no surprise there...

> When I look at a scene, I do not
> see the same image that I will see if I produce a 3d image of the scene
> on film. My eyes can only focus on one object at a time, whereas on
> film I can put many objects to be in focus at the same time,
>

Don, I suggest some elementary optometry books... the human eye with such a short fl has
everything in sharp focus from about 20ft to infinity... in other words, just like a
camera lens, at some distance, the lens is focused at infinity..... this distance is a
factor of the fl.... the longer the fl, the longer the distance. The human eye has a very
short fl, ~17mm fl, hence the short infinity distance.... So if you had a stereo shot 10
ft to infinity, in the real world, there would be a very small diopter correction from
10ft to 20ft, and after that, no additional accomodation is required.... is this
different, yeah, slightly, but not enough to be noticeable....

> as is the
> case in most of my 3d photographs. My eyes can only cover, (sharply),
> less than a 2 degree field of view. The millions of 3d photographers
> shooting realist format 3d, in most cases have never seen their images,
> as ortho images, as most viewers do not contain, 'ortho' fl viewing
> lenses. Do Holms, 3d card viewers present ortho images when they are
> used are used, I don't think so.
>

I think you are getting carried away with the term ortho.... while vfl = tfl is
ideal...the goal is, to keep it as close as possible... the brain offers tremendous leeway
in this area.... everyone has different thresholds, we were not all created equal. As a
general rule, I have found the gen population from my testing can withstand viewing lenses
.5 - 1.5x the taking fl, assuming normal base.... then when you move to digital, you have
the added issue of limitation from lack of resolution...

> I wish Bill G would present some of his, self proclaimed, great 3d
> images to an unbiased few of us,so we could get an unbiased view as to
> whether they are great or not so great. Seeing could be believing.
>

Don, during one of your off-list rants, where you only included select list members, you
questioned my integrity about the equipment I owned... you challenged me to show all the
gear I had mentioned... Once again, you think everyone is on your payroll, and we stand
ready to service your needs. So I presented you with a simple proposition to see if you
were full of hot air, or you had serious interest. I offered..... I would post pix within
24hrs of the gear you questioned, sitting on USA Today newspaper, so you knew it was a
current picture.... strange thing is Don, you ended that discussion immediately, no
response....any surprise? Not to me.... it seems you are never willing to stand behind any
of the issues you feel so strong about.... if you thought I was all BS, then why did you
not respond to the offer? any way, as suspected, your desire to smear continues..... not
sure how I fell into the Dons crap list, but its no fun, I don't wish it on my worst
enemies...

> have never explained to us, what is the use of producing high resolution
> 3d images, if the high resolution image can not be seen by our eyes.
>

I do 3d photography for my eyes, not yours .... or is there some unwritten law that anyone
that does 3d work, it must pass Dons scrutiny? I am sure you would HATE my images....
there is nothing I have written, owned or discussed that you have not hated or strongly
disagreed with..... so I will save ya the hassle, my images are very poor vs. the ultra
high quality imagery you produce through your Crusty viewer (another member named it that,
not me) .... My captured pairs and custom lenses / light boxes are highly inferior to what
you have produced. OK, you have won Don, fair enough?

Can we return to "no communications" between us? It's much more peaceful that way.....


Bill

>
> DON
>
>