Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D

Notice
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
<-- Date Index --> <-- Thread Index --> [Author Index]

old posts on Spud res


  • From: John Bercovitz <bercov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: old posts on Spud res
  • Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 08:38:15 -0800 (PST)

> From photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx Mon Apr 11 20:41:25 1994
> From: bercov@xxxxxxxxxxx (John Bercovitz)
> To: Multiple recipients of list <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Sputnik resolution
> 
> As I may have mentioned when I was adjusting the lenses
> on the Sputnik so they would all focus at the same distance
> at the same time, one of the lenses in this camera is fuzzier
> than the other no matter where I focus it.  Don't know why.
> Maybe it has a tipped element in it.  When stopped down, the
> lenses are fairly equal but opened up to middle f numbers,
> it becomes obvious.
> 
> Film used: Kodak VPS  (what I had on hand)
> 
> f/16
> center 32        corner 20
> 
> f/11
> center 22        corner 16
> 
> f/9.5
> center 22/16     corner 16
> 
> f/6.6
> center 25/16     corner 16
> 
> I also shot a pair outdoors and freeviewed it cross-eyed.
> Weird.  Kind of amusing to look at my daughter's red sports car
> when it's green.  8-)  That's one nice thing about this format;
> it's big enough to freeview.
> 
> John B
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx Tue Apr 12 07:31:53 1994
> From: bercov@xxxxxxxxxxx (John Bercovitz)
> To: Multiple recipients of list <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re:  Sputnik resolution
> 
> Addenda:
> 
> I guess I must have been in a hurry yesterday; I forgot a
> couple of things I was going to say.  One is that since the
> Sputnik stereo camera has lens focal lengths about twice the
> focal lengths of the 7-perf 35 mm format, for comparing the two
> cameras, you would have to multiply the the Sputnik's figures
> by two.  In other words, since the worst resolution I found
> in the tests of the Sputhik was 16 lpmm, in 7-perf format
> terms, this would be 32 lpmm.  This is not a bad figure
> compared to the FED, for instance.  There is potential to
> do much better, though.
> 
> The other thing I wanted to say was that the medium format
> does not push the film's capabilities very hard.  In the
> small format, part of the limitation on resolution is the
> film's capability.  Not so with the Sputnik; it's a long
> way from stressing the film.  Now if the Sputnik used Zeiss
> lenses 8-), the film's capabilities would come into play.
> In large format (who was it that wanted to build a 4x5
> stereo camera?) there are plenty of films with good enough
> resolution that the resolution is all dependent on the lens.
> 
> This is yet another reason that medium format is the ideal
> format for stereo.  However, miniature (35 mm) format is
> sure a whole lot handier.
> 
> John B