[MF3D.FORUM:52] Re: Apparent image size, MF verus

[Richard Rylander <rlrylander@xxxxxxx>]

Bill Glickman wrote:

>     With all the technology enhancments that have occured in the past 5
> years with film, scanners, photoshop and film recording devices, is it
> possible, that using high end 35mm stereo cameras like the RBT, we can
> produce a spectacular 3d images through a viewer... I am not ever suggesting
> that a smaller format can win over a smaller format, but considering the
> logistical problems of MF 3d cameras, lenses for viewers, etc... I figured
> if I can get 35mm up to very high standards, it may be impossible to detect
> the difference...

There is a very interesting 'development' in film technology recently announced
by AGFA.  By adding formate to an emulsion, researchers at the University of
Paris-Sud claim they can capture every bit of light incident on a film.
Basically, the formate is supposed to stop electrons kicked out of AgX crystals
by photons from recombining with the crystal.  This has the potential to
increase film speed 10-fold and dramatically reduce reciprocity law failure.  No
word on when we can expect commercial products exploiting the effect.

Scaling film grain along with other camera parameters will boost the quality of
small frame size images, but the one thing that can't be scaled is the
wavelength of visible light.  The resolution rule of thumb of 1600/N lines/mm
(where 'N' is the f-number) still holds.  A small frame size at this limiting
resolution will always record fewer total 'pixels' than a larger frame at the
same resolution.

Of course, achieving the theoretical resolution limit with a real system (lenses
with aberrations, film that doesn't lie in the exact focal plane, camera shake,
etc.) is another matter.  On most practical aspects, particularly film flatness,
a smaller format wins.  Also of importance to stereo photography is depth of
field (we like lots of it) - another advantage for small formats.

I agree with Bill G. that small format has definite attractions and potential,
but for the time being MF still wins the WOW! factor race.

By the way, will we ever see a commercially produced digital stereo camera
(consumer level - not some ultra-expensive lab prototype)?  Perfect left-right
synchronization, flexible interocular spacing (no interleaved film frames to
limit you), LCD glasses for a stereo monitor display as large as you can afford,
etc.

Richard Rylander