Mark, those are great examples and explain the use of the word nicely. I can easily visualize all of the effects you mention and think "3D effect" describes them nicely.
** Even though they are 2D images, the eye and brain intuitively understand that they are of a 3D subject. ** Thanks, Don -----Original message----- From: "Mark Erickson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:44:56 -0600 To: "Pentax-Discuss" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3D quality in a lens? > "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >But my point is that it isnt ***artistically*** or technically > >accurate. It's a pure misnomer that shouldn't be used IMHO. > >JCO > > I completely disagree. Try an experiment: close one eye and > look at a nearby object with a far-away background. For me, the > nearby object has a 3D quality that is imparted by the combination > of the sharply-focused object and a blurry background. No, it's not > the same effect as that given with both eyes, but it's still a > 3D effect. > > By the way, I can think of three distinctly different 3D effects: > The relative positions of objects that you see with two eyes, > selective focus, and the relative motion of foreground vs > background objects in dynamic scenes. Stereo viewers and > holograms excite the first effect, selective-focus excites the > second, and rotating or moving a hologram relative to one's eyes > excites the third. > > --Mark >
