[MF3D.FORUM:848] Re: Stereo Resolution -- Increased by the Brain ??

["don lopp" <dlopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually in my opinion ,the Stereo Graphic worked quite well with ASA 100
film but it did not work very well with ASA 10 Kodachrome film ! Don.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold Baize" <baize@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Medium Format 3D Photography" <MF3D.Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 10:06 AM
Subject: [MF3D.FORUM:674] Re: Stereo Resolution -- Increased by the Brain ??


>
> Oleg is right of course, the brain takes information from
> both eyes and combines it not only to produce stereopsis
> but also greater detail. People like myself, who have
> eyes that focus at different distances, can get by just
> fine without glasses because the brain simply uses the
> information from the eye that is in proper focus for
> what he/she is attending, but at the loss of the finer
> detail resolution. That is also the idea behind the
> ill-conceived Stereo Graphic camera, with one lens fixed at
> close focus and the other at infinity. It was an attempt
> at an easy to use fixed focus camera during the days of
> very slow slide film. (I have some slides that were made by
> one of these cameras in the fifties and they are awful!).
>
> A similar argument about integrated information can be made
> about interlaced stereo video- detractors decry the low
> resolution, claiming that the resolution is cut in half.
> A standard video frame is made of two fields, each with
> half the image. In a field sequential stereo frame these
> are the left and right images. So some say you have half
> the resolution since each field is only 240 lines rather
> than 480, but in fact most of the information in the
> two fields combine to make a single 480 line image just
> as in a standard video frame, and where they differ you
> get the added information of depth. The only noticeable
> loss is in the edge detection needed to resolve text.
>
> Get back on topic, I'd say double images do not "squeeze"
> higher quality out of less expensive equipment except
> that it adds stereo. After all, the cost and trouble is
> doubled, so without the added dimension of stereo, why
> bother. If you have stereo then you have added a decidedly
> qualitative improvement far beyond the marginal increase in
> resolution.
>
> Harold
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oleg Vorobyoff [mailto:olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>
> What is really intriguing to me is whether 3D could be used to increase
the
> apparent resolution of 2D imagery.  I know that duplicate non-stereo
slides
> look
> sharper and more vibrant in a 3D viewer than one of the slides viewed in
any
> way.  This might be a means of squeezing MF quality out of 35mm equipment,
> and
> LF quality out of MF.
>