Thread: figure drawing from stereoscopic pictures?

1. figure drawing from stereoscopic pictures?

Ok, so I have a problem, in my city there are no places where I can attend nude figure drawing sessions, I already know the importance of doing studies from life and all, I do draw from life, for example people in the street or public places, but I cant practice with nude figure drawing study sessions, because there are not in my city.
I'm wondering if it could be possible to do "life" studies from stereoscopic 3d pictures. since the model is in 3d and not a flat 2d picture. like this one.
(anaglyph 3d)
http://www.3d6.com/3dartbits/becca515_A.jpg
http://www.3d6.com/3dartbits/dawn235_A.jpg
http://www.3d6.com/3dartbits/robin622_A.jpg
http://users.telenet.be/thomasweynan...reo-nudes.html
It's possible?

Or
if not a good idea then
can u give some advice in other options to study anatomy and figure drawing?

2. Isn't better than a model. But beats photos, that's for sure.

Another method would be getting the Virtual Pose books and "rocking" the Quicktime turnarounds back and forth a little. That also gives you a fair idea of the volume.

3. Originally Posted by arenhaus
Isn't better than a model. But beats photos, that's for sure.
I disagree. There's some discussion of this (and photos vs. life in general) in this thread. Here's my take:
Originally Posted by Elwell
So, you're going to draw with anaglyph glasses on?;P

I really shouldn't have to explain this, but...

The problem isn't depth, it's form. A stereoscopic photo is still taken from one viewpont. Take a stereoscopic photo and look at it from an angle. It's not the same as looking at an actual object. If anything, viewing a stereo picture from anything but it's optimal distance/angle is more distracting than a flat photo, because the stereo effect is so dependent on reproducing the conditions it was taken under. I think this plays into why so many 3D movies are distracting rather than immersive. It's kind of like the uncanny valley effect: we accept flat images without question, we accept reality without question, but anything in between gets iffy.

4. Originally Posted by artista_solitario
since the model is in 3d and not a flat 2d picture.
But they're not, aren't they? It's still a 2D picture you're looking at, only with questionable illusion. Or two 2D pictures. Also honestly I don't know how comfortable that would be in the long run.
There's been lots of talk about drawing from photos and how to use them correctly in here, definitely suggest you to read this through: http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=221546

Also here's an option for you, a large mirror. Or hit the beach if possible. If you have friends who understand, ask them to pose in swimsuits etc.

EDIT: GODDAMN ELWELL! Stealing my link thunder...

5. Think of it this way:

Stereoscopic images are a gimmicky illusion which garners reactions varying from "Nifty" to "Headaches".

Classical paintings are a painfully handcrafted illusion tempered by a lifetime of training and are in every way successful examples of what you are attempting yourself.

Which do you think would be a more fruitful resource? A photo with a gimmicky filter or a Velasquez?

6. Originally Posted by Elwell
I disagree. There's some discussion of this (and photos vs. life in general) in this thread. Here's my take:
Point taken.