Re: To Box or Not?

[Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxx>]

Paul A. Lehman wrote:

> Considering that almost all stereo photographs are taken at
> f16-f32, is there any reasonable arguments against not making a
> fixed hyperfocus box stereo camera? If the focus is set at, say,
> 30ft, most depth of field ranges would span from 8-10ft to
> infinity at f16+. This would greatly simplify camera
> construction. Any significant drawbacks?

I know this has been done by at least one of the home builders, maybe
Dan Greenhouse, for MF stereo. Some thoughts...

The significant drawback for me would be that the difference between an
object in hyperfocus and an object in pin sharp focus is quite obvious
in some circumstances, and without the ability to change focus this can
create difficulties in some shooting contexts.

Lets say you wanted to make a nice situational portrait of your squeeze
in an outdoor setting. Using your camera, you'd place her at 8-10 feet
and compose the rest of the background behind her. But when you get the
chrome back, you may very well clearly see that the huge tree 30 feet
from the camera and 20 feet behind her is in visibly sharper focus than
she is, yet she is supposed to be the most prominent element in the
visual hierarchy. This makes for a very uncomfortable composition.

I also think there are plenty of shooting situations where you'd want to
focus from 5 to 40 feet than 9 ft -> inf, such as in shooting almost any
interior.

I wonder if your idea might be better suited to smaller formats, where
the shorter fl lenses would help you out with greater hyperfocal
distances and smaller CsOC at any given aperture...


Eric G.