Just as with the cross-eye/wide-eye(?) debate I guess so too is the
convergence point.  I had read that the parallel or non-converging method
was typical of stereophotography so that it was the usual choice.
Maybe the cross-eyed method is a result of non-photography stereopairs.
Makes sense though to use the focal-point, except since everything else in a
scene (potentially) is not at that spot it would cause a distortion in the
rest of the scene I suppose.

Bob

"A.J. Palmer" <dae### [at] wolsicom> wrote in message
news:38779EE7.F9C641ED@wolsi.com...
> Sander wrote:
> >
> > Nice little picture, but it's not a cross-eyed stereo, but a
parallel-eyed
> > stereo (IYKWIM).
> > I used to make them for smaller images; as soon as they are larger than
> > let's say 8 or 9 cm, a cross-eyed is better. A bit of a strain on the
eyes,
> > though...
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Sander
>
> I prefer cross-eye, big or small, because I can use my glasses to see
> the image.  Parallel stereo just doesn't work for me, my glasses
> interfere with the focusing process, giving me a serious headache.
> Someone informed me that they have no problem, but it may have something
> to do with my astigmatism and the correction in the lens.
>
> Incidentally, I'd like to see a nice, large cross-eye stereo image
> complete with a focal point and have the simulated "eyes" look directly
> at the focal point.  It seems that a lot of the stereo images out there
> don't look AT something, they look from parallel points of view (i.e.
> each eye looking a smidgen to the side, but the rays parallel for each
> "eye"), making the effect a little odd.
>
> Or maybe I don't understand how it should work.
> --
>
> -- A.J.
> http://www.cc.utah.edu/~ajp25960
>
> - "There's a door"
> - "Where does it go?"
> - "It stays where it is, I think."
>         -- (Terry Pratchett, Eric)

Post a reply to this message