If I understand your general meaning properly I agree that the three descriptions (and more) are or can be independent. But none of the others alone (for me) sync up with the descriptions and images being offered up \"3D\" - In each example DOF has been the foundational attribute - or other viewers had trouble designating them as being \"3D\". Well, except recently when Samuli Vahonen subjectively expanded the definition. I \'m personally not seeing that though.
As to jcmarney\'s shot here, I can get into it. If there was a just a little more detail on the surface of the nettles and branch it would have even more \"3D-isness\".
If I understand your general meaning properly I agree that the three descriptions (and more) are or can be independent. But none of the others alone (for me) sync up with the descriptions and images being offered up \"3D\" - In each example DOF has been the foundational attribute - or other viewers had trouble designating them as being \"3D\". Well, except recently when Samuli Vahonen subjectively expanded the definition. I \'m personally not seeing that though.
Jan 12, 2010 at 04:58 PM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #7997738 « what is '3d' ? »
