"Five" <Niko@fiveminutesof_blank.com> wrote in message

news:MwT2c.81904$ko6.435972@attbi_s02...

> In article <g0O2c.28135$YN5.15552

> @nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu

> > Unless the display is VERY LARGE relative to

> > the viewing distance (and even then, as you point out

> > with the Imax example, it is not a very strong exception),

> > the "band-aid", or "slot", view seems silly to me (though

> > it can make shooting tall thin buildings (and single people)

> > interesting (though turning the 16:9 camera 90 degrees

> > solves these problems...;-). I have not yet figured out the

> > common appeal of this awkward image proportion...

> > --

> > David Ruether

> Being that most humans see with 2 eyes, they can see

> wider than they can tall. Why not show the image in

> the same way? You obviously don't watch many movies

> in the cinema.

Uh, if you "look" carefully at what we see, we see a field

that is somewhat wider than high (the proportions depend

on face shape), with viewing width exceeding 180 degrees

horizontally and somewhat less vertically (and most of the

field of one eye is duplicated by the other [not added-to

by the other, or we would not see 3-D]). The field area is

also soft-edged, and not rectangular. The perspective type

is spherical ('fisheye"). In other words, it is COMPLETELY

unlike the display-types we use for viewing graphic images

of all types, with one rare exception: the projection of a

fisheye image onto a full-visual-field hemispherical screen.

I've always found silly various attempts to explain "normal"

lenses, some perspective types, and most viewing formats

in terms of how we see, since that is so very far removed

from what most display types are like. BTW, if you are

interested, you can find more on this at:

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/perspective-correction.htm

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#perspective

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com