keep your position firmly Imre! Ok, no mention about FW at the Pub!!! Ciao, Dariush --- Lun 18/1/10, Imre dr.Zsolnai-Nagy <imrezsolnainagy(-at-)gmail.com> ha scritto: Da: Imre dr.Zsolnai-Nagy <imrezsolnainagy(-at-)gmail.com> Oggetto: Re: [Anaglyphs] Imre/Why FLOATING WINDOW? A: anaglyphs(-at-)yahoogroups.com Data: Lunedì 18 gennaio 2010, 20:26   Dariush! 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!!!!!! !!!!!!! ( sorry to say, Dariush didnt present, so all the congress projection were tilted by artistic reasons..... hehehehe ...) 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-) yahoo.it> 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).. . so I repeat my wish for you, have a nice FWs. I prefer to share a cold Pilsen Beer bottle with you one day somewhere! Ciao, Dariush --- Lun 18/1/10, Imre dr.Zsolnai-Nagy <imrezsolnainagy(-at-) gmail.com> ha scritto: Da: Imre dr.Zsolnai-Nagy <imrezsolnainagy(-at-) gmail.com> Oggetto: Re: [Anaglyphs] Imre/Why FLOATING WINDOW? A: anaglyphs(-at-)yahoogrou ps.com Data: Lunedì 18 gennaio 2010, 19:06   Dariush! 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....... Imre 2010/1/18 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: Da: Imre dr.Zsolnai-Nagy <imrezsolnainagy(-at-) gmail..com> Oggetto: Re: [Anaglyphs] Kenneth/Why FLOATING WINDOW? A: anaglyphs(-at-)yahoogrou ps.com Data: Lunedì 18 gennaio 2010, 15:17   Hi Marshall! 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! Imre 2010/1/18 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 To: anaglyphs(-at-)yahoogrou ps.com 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. . hu http://imre3d. axo.hu -- http://www.conversi on3d.freeweb. hu http://imre3d. axo.hu -- http://www.conversi on3d.freeweb. hu http://imre3d. axo.hu

• New Members 3
• New Photos 2