Electron wrote:
>>Not if we're looking at distant objects.
>
> Yes, and that's the only case. But usually you don't, I've seen stereo
> cameras aimed at indoors that were parallel. Just to make an example:
> http://www.surveyor.com/stereo/?gclid=CP2sgoPg75YCFRK6ugod4DBRrA
>
> this was just an example, but I have seen no exceptions. To "tune" the
> cameras to, say, 5 meters, would not ruin the 3D effect (e.g. anaglyph)
> at other distances, just optimize it for 5 meters instead of infinity.
>
> Again, I wonder if it's the right way to make the cameras parallel or
> if it's just for ease of mounting, etc.. I still haven't been able to
> give myself a 100% sure answer, hence this post.

I think the reason we humans "coverge" our eyes on a close object, is 
because you want to have the image right in the center of retina for best 
results. You can't make out the details when looking at an up-close object 
from the corner of your eye. Cameras have the same density of pixels 
everywhere, so the concept of "peripheral vision" does not exist for a 
camera.



Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist