Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Bill G

Some very valid points made here regarding 2d images being distorted views. 
While I love John R's 3d enthusiasm, I too don't subscribe to his description of 2d images.
I think it can also confuse many newcomers reading this position.
In addition to many of the arguments made in previous posts...
I will add the obvious one... a Cityscape or Landscape image, where all subjects are at infinity has no depth to human vision... so a 2d print and a 3d capture seen in a viewer would yield the same retinal images.  I can't imagine anyone suggesting the 2d capture is distorted.  ??
A 3d capture and 3d viewing adds stereoscopic deviation vs a 2d image.   All else remains equal.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 12:02 AM Depthcam via <> wrote:
> it is a true fact that all 2-D images are distorted

So let me see.  If I take a "distorted" 2D picture and then another a few inches to the side, then I have two distorted pictures.  And when l put them into a viewer, suddenly they magically "undistort" themselves, correct ?

But the truth is that our beloved "stereoscopy" is actually no more than two flat images.  The true 3D world cannot be captured via a pair of flat images.  It would require thousands from every possible angle to reproduce it.  Therefore it's now clear that stereoscopy is a distorted view of the true three dimensional world !

As for the great painters, they were doing exactly that: two-dimensional works conveying depth through other means.  They obviously have been successful since we still admire their works centuries after their passing.  They are found in the great museums of the world.  I wonder how many 3D pictures or movies will have such staying power ?


Join to automatically receive all group messages.