Messages on Anaglyphs group
Post on Anaglyphs group
Viewed
Dariush! Dariush! Hi Marshall!
You are going on my limits of patience!
Thank you for your wishes for first, but this dont change my position.
About the Pilsen Beer, I agree, but I exclude any conversation about the stereo, OK?
So, I see you dont understand the test.....I pre-imagined this....
1. The crosseye and the parallel view, all the same , well be fusible, need a certain strain for the eyes. The practiced stereo viewers, like you and me, certainly can fuse the image.
2. This STRAIN is possible to conserve for a certain time......I can conserve it for 1 hour, sure. But the Avatar film, 3 hours, was too long for me too.
3. The STRAINLESS eye position ( not for you and me ) is a certain convengerce, what divide the scene in negative and positive parallax.
4. For this reason the FW ( Floating image) is better visible for a novice.
5. The mounting for stereoscopes is exactly similar to the FW. ( F-image)
6. The FW ( F-image) is NOT a shoting rule!!!!!! It is only a MOUNTING rule.....
7. On the Stereoscopy World congress ALL WERE PROJECTED WITH FLOTING WINDOW!!!!!!
All this what I can and want add!!!!!
Specially for YOU and Marshall:
Dont worry.....dear friends!
The 80% of your images arent objects of any FW discussion because they are out of rule from the shoting conditions.
Of course, for your images, the floating window rarely helps, they are dead in the moment of the shot. (yet Pilsen Beer together ? )
If this NOT help, so you must find another people for dispute....I'm totally exhausted ....
Imre
2010/1/18 Dariush Radpour <osservo2000(-at-)
Your way of discussion is somehow very close to the pre-comunist era... using these expressions as "You don't have right to critic.... " and so on! You can continue to argue about this issiue and I can follow your thought until I wish and vice versa. I don't need to understand yout test because my critique to your beloved FW is not technical but something else that you also have a difficulty or impossibility to understand, ( as we are speaking two very far different languages)..
I prefer to share a cold Pilsen Beer bottle with you one day somewhere!Oggetto: Re: [Anaglyphs] Imre/Why FLOATING WINDOW?
A: anaglyphs(-at-)yahoogrou
Data: Lunedì 18 gennaio 2010, 19:06
See this 2 attachment, one is crosseyed, one is parallel, booth need the anaglyph glasses.....
If you dont understand this test, so you dont has any right to critic the FW where we are discussing only on 2-3 or max 5 mm.......
Imre2010/1/18 Dariush Radpour <osservo2000(-at-) yahoo.it>
Imre, I really don't know if you are NOT able to understand the point or simply you are making a joke here! Instead to be offended or express your anger or surprise try to understand the main point. FW system is a new entry in this field that "damage" the main concept of the 3D image because of its introduction a second fake and false level to the image's natural surface! Is it too hard to understand something so simple as this ?!!!!!
If you don't understand something so simple as this, ask help of somebody to explain it better to you in a different way and language. It is NOT a different visual system of looking to the FW but a different mental concept that I tried to explain to you before even in italian for which you asked pardon in my name too...but evidently you refuse it or maybe unable to understand it. I surrender at this point. Have many
happy FW foever.
Ciao,
Dariush
--- Lun 18/1/10, Imre dr.Zsolnai-Nagy <imrezsolnainagy(-at-) gmail.com> ha scritto:
A: anaglyphs(-at-)yahoogrou ps.com
Da: Imre dr.Zsolnai-Nagy <imrezsolnainagy(-at-) gmail..com>
Oggetto: Re: [Anaglyphs] Kenneth/Why FLOATING WINDOW?
Data: Lunedì 18 gennaio 2010, 15:17
I think this is my LAST message on this topic....
What is interesting, is this:So far, about 90% of the FWs I've seen have been so
irritating to me that
I stopped commenting on most views that contain
them.
So irritating? Me and others must ask pardon! We dont want never irritate you!
I think your words are too hard! We dont merit it!
But if you want open a discussion on "what is irritating?" , we are here!
IMHO you and Dariush have a visual system what is out of the common man's visual properties and this isnt an insult, believe me!
Imre2010/1/18 Marshall Rubin <mrubin(-at-)hvc.rr. com>
Dariush--
I largely agree with you, but carrying your logic
further,
that could also be used to argue that 2D-3D
conversions
can compromise the magic of a 2-D picture, since
creating
depth where none was originally intended represents an
added artifact.
We could further claim that by placing any
photograph or painting within
a physical artifact known as a frame, also
compromises the original integrity
of the work of art.
So far, about 90% of the FWs I've seen have been so
irritating to me that
I stopped commenting on most views that contain
them. But occasionally
I've seen one that works well, so I won't rule out
their use entirely entirely.
I'm just hopeful that the use of the FW eventually,
like most fads, will fade away.
Marshall
From: Dariush Radpour
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 5:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Anaglyphs] Kenneth/Why FLOATING
WINDOW?
it all depends on your consideration about a 3D
photography. By my very personal point of view any extra and stravagant
added artifact, compromises that magic impression that we are assisting a
"real" scene out of the "time machine's
window".
Cheers,
Dariush
--- Dom 17/1/10, Kenneth Nellis
<nellisks(-at-)verizon. net> ha
scritto:
Da:
Kenneth Nellis <nellisks(-at-)verizon. net>
Oggetto:
Re: [Anaglyphs] Why FLOATING WINDOW? Last try for convince-Imre
A:
anaglyphs(-at-)yahoogrou ps.com
Data: Domenica 17 gennaio 2010,
22:30
On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Tim Johnson wrote:
because windows don't normally float in
space
But, wouldnâ??t it be cool of they could!
â??Ken
--
http://www.conversi on3d.freeweb.
http://imre3d. axo.hu
--
http://www.conversi
http://imre3d.
