"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
