On 3/5/2010 3:44 PM, Stessen, Jeroen wrote:
Hello all, (from home via webmail again) Mark:> You have not answered my question about why, if reduced disparity is> acceptable, we shouldn't simply use microstereopsis and avoid many problems.Oh, I'm sorry, I took that for a rhetorical question ! Then why don't we simply shoot in 2D and avoid all those 3D problems ?!
Simple: Because then there is no stereoscopic depth sensation whatsoever. Microstereopsis offers the depth sensation.
And who determines when the problems outweigh the benefits? Someone like me, who never seems to get 3D fatigue, or someone who gets 3D fatigue even in a cinema watching /Avatar/? The point of microstereopsis (which was discussed, by the way, at the Banks roundtable) is to provide comfortable viewing for all WITH a depth sensation.Because we want as much depth as is reasonably possible, up to the point where the problems almost outweigh the benefits.
Unlike a lawyer, who is supposed to ask at trial only those questions to which he already knows the answer, when I ask a question, I don't usually expect to hear anything in particular. I like to learn.Is that wat you wanted to hear ? Why does one climb a mountain ? Because it's there.
Wait and see. Unless you can give Cameron a call and find out ?
Got the number? TTFN, Mark
