Captain Jack wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
> news:4b51f88d@news.povray.org...
>> I disagree.  Maybe it's just because we're more used to flat film (the 
>> same way that video games put in stuff like lens flairs even when the 
>> character isn't using lenses).
>>
>> I think the brain knows it's looking at a projection on a flat screen and 
>> is more fooled by the stereo, so the inability to focus is more obvious.
> 
> That's how a lot of tilt-shift images are able to give the impression that 
> the viewer is looking at animated toys, instead of a film or image sequence 
> of "real" objects. We have become accustomed to the subtle cue that a narrow 
> depth of field (a feature of macro type lenses) means we're looking at 
> something small. An artist can play with depth of field (as well as color 
> saturation and other goodies) and create an illusion based on our 
> acclimation to cinema and still photography. I once saw a guy do a pretty 
> good tilt-shift simulation artificially (layer after layer of abstraction 
> now...) in Poser of all things.
> 
> --
> Jack 
> 
> 

The narrow depth of field is not the only cue, and may not be the most
powerful. What a tilt-shift lens also does is chance the way parallel
lines appear. You can see the effect more dramatically when looking at
pictures of architecture where, were you are the ground looking up, the
sides of a building would appear to converge, a tilt-shift lens allows
you to force them to be closer to parallel. When you are up close to a
small cube, the lines you see appear parallel. The larger the object,
the more the lines appear to converge.

Another is the strange way the brain expects parallax to work at long
distances, and the way it does when viewed through high magnification
lenses.

Post a reply to this message