You don't have a clue, 3D photography is not an optical "trick" , it is the same way humans are able to sense depth. Each eye sees a slightly different point of view due to the spacing between them. 3D photography is same exact principle, two lenses, two slightly different images, and the special viewing is just so that each of the viewer's eyes only sees the image recorded for that eye. A 3D photo is NOT a two dimensional image, its two 2D dimensional images that RECREATE a 3D scene, something a single 2D image cant do. JCO
-----Original Message----- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 7:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: 3D quality in a lens? > Selective Focus 2D, no matter how nice and pleasing > to the eye is radically different from 3D photos. > To call a beautifully rendered and eye pleasing selective focus shot > "3 dimensional quality" is incorrect terminology. Call it what it is, > not what it isnt. And a 3D photo is still a two dimensianal image with a bit of optical trickery, and a special viewer required to see the trick. Three dimensional quality is a perfectly valid descriptor of a very real optical rendering, whether you agree or not is moot. William Robb
