[MF3D.FORUM:905] Re: Stereo Resolution -- Increased by the Brain ??

["don lopp" <dlopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually the  Stereo Graphic does quite well when used with modern ASA 100
films granted it did not perform very well with ASA 10 Kodachrome but same
was tue of many F 3.5 stereo cameras of the period  Don.
----- Original Message -----
From: "don lopp" <dlopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Medium Format 3D Photography" <MF3D.Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 9:29 PM
Subject: [MF3D.FORUM:903] Re: Stereo Resolution -- Increased by the Brain ??


> Lots of luck ? 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.
> >
>