I don\'t agree with the implication of this statement. A \"nice use of DOF\" is not the same thing as an image having good 3-dimensional qualities.
OK, I\'ll take the challenge. Define the specific properties that make this magical \"3D\" effect without using the term DOF or any of it\'s definitions.
Good luck with that.
Remember, I did specify \"proper\" or \"cunning\" use of DOF. Not just simply DOF in any old range. But I will go further in saying that you can\'t have one without the other in any regard at all.
one from me just for fun
You can\'t have DOF at all without some kind of 3D-ish feeling. How apparent it is to a person and how much it \"pops out\" depends on the viewers\' willingness and ability to put themselves in that \"state\". And I assume you will naturally agree that you can\'t have a \"3d-ish\" effect without DOF. There see, interdependence.
I don\'t agree with the implication of this statement. A \"nice use of DOF\" is not the same thing as an image having good 3-dimensional qualities.
OK, I\'ll take the challenge. Define the specific properties that make this magical \"3D\" effect without using the term DOF or any of it\'s definitions.
Good luck with that.
Remember, I did specify \"proper\" or \"cunning\" use of DOF. Not just simply DOF in any old range. But I will go further in saying that you can\'t have one without the other in any regard at all.
one from me just for fun
You can\'t have DOF at all without some kind of 3D-ish feeling. How apparent it is to a person and how mush it \"pops out\" depends on the viewers\' willingness and ability to put themselves in that \"state\". And I assume you will naturally agree that you can\'t have a \"3d-ish\" effect without DOF. There see, interdependence.
I don\'t agree with the implication of this statement. A \"nice use of DOF\" is not the same thing as an image having good 3-dimensional qualities.
OK, I\'ll take the challenge. Define the specific properties that make this magical \"3D\" effect without using the term DOF or any of it\'s definitions.
Good luck with that.
Remember, I did specify \"proper\" or \"cunning\" use of DOF. Not just simply DOF in any old range. But I will go further in saying that you can\'t have one without the other in any regard at all.
one from me just for fun
You can\'t have DOF at all without some kind of 3D-ish feeling. How apparent it is to a person and how mush it \"pops out\" depends on the viewers\' willingness and ability to put themselves in that \"state\". And I assume you will naturally agree that you can\'t have a \"3d-ish\" effect without DOF. There see, interdependence.
I don\'t agree with the implication of this statement. A \"nice use of DOF\" is not the same thing as an image having good 3-dimensional qualities.
OK, I\'ll take the challenge. Define the specific properties that make this magical \"3D\" effect without using the term DOF or any of it\'s definitions.
Good luck with that.
Remember, I did specify \"proper\" or \"cunning\" use of DOF. Not just simply DOF in any old range.
Jan 11, 2010 at 06:46 AM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #7990968 « what is '3d' ? »
