Why do we need proof of 3D being real, scientific definitions? Really? If I see 3D in a picture, it works for me and I can be happy. If I see 3D in a picture, I donīt care if the rest of humanity does not.
Some us see the 3D, some apparently donīt. As it happen, both are right. Thatīs nothing to argue about. No reason to debate and try to convince the other part. Thatīs all ready Game Over.
There are two interesting questions to answer:
1. Why do some see, others donīt? (lens? sensor? picture? viewer?)
2. Can we scientifically discriminate between pictures with 3D and without?
2.1. Can this be tied to any specific lens, lens design, lens manufacturer?
The reason for my interest in this subject is because I want lenses that can produce 3D for me. Professionals have their obvious reasons. As for the lens+sensor part, we just donīt have neither the data nor the knowledge to interpret it. We only have the fourth part of the optical chain, the viewer. We can chose to argue and fight, or explore and learn.
Nov 29, 2009 at 01:08 PM
Previous versions of Z250SA's message #7831740 « 3D discussion in the canonforum »
