http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/stvmkr/index.html
The average interocular of humans is considered to be about 65mm (2.5 inches.) When this same distance is used as the interaxial distance between two shooting cameras then the resulting stereoscopic effect is typically known as “Ortho-stereo.” Many stereographers choose 2.5” as a stereo-base for this reason.
If the interaxial distance used to shoot is smaller than 2.5 inches then you are shooting “Hypo-stereo.” This technique is common for theatrically released films to accommodate the effects of the big screen. It is also used for macro stereoscopic photography.
Hyper-stereo refers to interaxial distances greater than 2.5 inches. As I mentioned earlier the greater the interaxial separation, the greater the depth effect. An elephant can perceive much more depth than a human, and a human can perceive more depth than a mouse.
However, using this same analogy, the mouse can get close and peer inside the petals of a flower with very good depth perception, and the human will just go “cross-eyed.” Therefore decreasing the interaxial separation between two cameras to 1” or less will allow you to shoot amazing macro stereo-photos and separating the cameras to several feet apart will allow great depth on mountain ranges, city skylines and other vistas.
The trouble with using hyper-stereo is that scenes with gigantic objects in real-life may appear as small models. This phenomenon is known as dwarfism and we perceive it this way because the exaggerated separation between the taking lenses allows us to see around big objects much more that we do in the real world. Our brain interprets this as meaning the object must be small.
The opposite happens with hypo-stereo, where normal sized objects appear gigantic. (Gigantism.)
http://dashwood3d.com/blog/beginners-guide-to-shooting-stereoscopic-3d/index.html
http://3d-con.com/2014/files/NSA2014-MACRO1.pdf
http://nzphoto.tripod.com/stereo/macrostereo/macro3dwindows.htm
http://soundingline.org/sockpuppet-einstein/
God does not play dice with the universe
Fake Einstein was right. The difference between a universe with some sort of Providential dynamic and one that is completely contingent, accidental and indifferent is vast, and that’s why religious debates are such a weighty part of human history.
But the problem with this question as phrased is that it assumes there is only one answer, as if it’s not a matter of perspective.
First of all, there’s the difference between a cosmic perspective and a human perspective, a difference the real Einstein grasped fluently.
“I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists,” he said (in a verifiable quote), “not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”
But even in terms of the fate and doings of mankind, it’s still a matter of perspective, because whether the universe can be seen as a friendly place or not has a lot to do with the distribution of luck.
“I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists,” he said (in a verifiable quote), “not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”
The universe runs its course, us willing or not. Its course is dynamic and ever changing. As such, if we do not adapt to its terms and flow, we will be still assimilated by it, one way or another.
In other words. “Eventually Earth will just rid of us as a bad case of fleas…”