> IF the resolution of the taking lenses, capture media and viewing system is sufficient, 20ft nears will produce the same depth effect in the viewer as it does in the real world.
But my point is that this "real world" effect at that distance has so little deviation that, to most people, it is indistinguishable from a 2D picture of the same scene. Again, stereo enthusiasts will look for the tiny bit of depth while most people will not.
> But I have shot many nears at 40ft, and the depth effect is still overwhelming.
I guess we have different perceptions of what constitutes an overwhelming picture. It sounds more like your viewing system is what produces the appeal. I remember you telling me that people were as impressed viewing a 2D picture in your viewer as viewing a 3D one.
> As always, the devil is in the details, so hard to throw out blanket statements like this.
Just reporting David Burder's research. I personally never found anyone who could determine the interaxial set in a picture just from looking at it unless the base was massive.
> This is what makes non ortho so difficult for sharing images...again, for personal consumption, anything goes.
Not a problem if you know your math. it's all about presenting an amount of deviation to the eyes that is comfortable. The rest is left to one's creativity. I think where you and I differ is that you are trying to reproduce real world viewing. I am not. Most people wake up every day seeing in 3D and it's only when things look "different" that they take notice. My sister lost sight in one eye a few years ago and one day she told me that her doctor had said she would no longer see in 3D. She asked me what was that all about. She argued she sees just the same with one eye as she did with two ! That shows you how much people actually notice depth in every day life.
> Its NOT about seeing depth, its about completely un natural views, such as, why do those trees look 2 inches tall??
But that's exactly what I like. Trying to move away from "normal" viewing. Doing things with images that contradict reality. Not all the time, mind you. But some of the time. My own mother didn't care much for 3D until in 1986 I showed her some night shots of light paintings I had taken at Expo 86. That's when she went "wow" !
> Again, its not just the base, its the near and far distances.
Of course. That was my point about the math and the programs I wrote back then to calculate it. Pompey Mainardi was a math teacher and a specialist in 3D calculations. He was my mentor.
> The reason the LEEP system, or even current VR does not become more mainstream (IMO), is because the IQ is poor.
That's one reason. But the greater one is people don't like to strap on what feels like a large diving mask on their heads to view pictures ! Heck, they didn't even like having to wear "sunglasses" to watch TV !
> Not sure how you knew all the research I did?? I do remember sharing a "few" things with you, but certainly not all.
You told me a lot more than you seem to remember - including sending me a schematics of your incredibly complex viewer. The point you made at the time was how very expensive such a viewer would be. The point I made is that Eric Howlett found a way around that by using cheap uncorrected fisheye lenses both in the camera and the viewer. It may not have been the best, but at least it showed what could be done and it was going to be accessible, Unfortunately, he was a one-man operation with some help from friends but little funding. Maybe something better could have been achieved, had a camera manufacturer taken over production. But at least we got to see very early on what the potential was.
> "a complete taking and viewing system" is my holy grail...
I agree that the manufacturers who have made VR180 cameras so far have left the viewing choice to the individual. That's probably to reduce costs and also because they know the buyers are for a large part already owners of a viewing device such as the Oculus Go. Mind you, Lenovo did offer a Mirage headset to go with their Mirage camera. However, most people just bought the camera, which cost less than the viewer !