[MF3D.FORUM:1655] Re: Using front shift to simulate camera movements?

[Tom Hubin <thubin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Matt,

Clever idea but the images will be mirrored. So you will need to print
with the emulsion side up or view slides with the emulsion side away
from the eye or project with the emulsion side away from the screen.
This will reduce the quality of the image.

A pair (or any even number) of mirrors for each camera is more
complicated but would avoid the mirror image problem. For that matter,
two mirrors on one camera and no mirrors on the other camera would also
work. But then the distance from camera lens to subject is not the same
for both cameras.

Tom Hubin
thubin@xxxxxxxxx

**********************************  
   
Matthew V. Ellsworth wrote:
> 
> Bill
> I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you want to do, but maybe this idea will
> help:
> Two cameras can be mounted facing each other on an adjustable rail -- with a
> small front-surface mirror mounted at a 45 degree angle in front of each lens.
> This allows you to get both cameras quite close (limited by the size of the
> mirrors), and allows easy access to the focusing and film advance mechanisms.
> Matt
> 
> Bill Glickman wrote:
> 
> >       I am trying to develop a MF camera system that allows one to set
> > interocular bases at any seperation without physical limitations.....As we
> > all know, this is physcially impossible sometimes with two non- shift
> > cameras.  My idea was to use two cameras side by side, but each one would
> > have the capability to shift the lens horizontally.   This has a very
> > dramatic effect vs. spacing the cameras.  For example, I can simulate 24"
> > interocular distance with only 3mm of front shift on one camera.  I have
> > tested this, it works.  So a small amount of lens shift would simulate
> > interocular spacing fro 0 to 500 + ft.
> >
> >       I have found that myself and my audience all prefer very small OFD's,
> > say 1.3mm, hence the need for bases much tigher than any two cameras can
> > every physically acheive.   A fixed stereo camera (sputnicks) don't appeal
> > to me because I want the flexibility of adjusting the interocular distance
> > when required.
> >
> >         Although this sounds good in theory, I am curious if this will
> > produce the same stereo effect as utilizing two cameras at the proper
> > interocular distance.  I don't plan to use it for excessive bases, only for
> > 24" and less.  Has anyone every tried this before?  Any input?
> >
> > Bill G
> 
> --
> ______ Matthew V. Ellsworth ______________________________
>       oakridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx      http://www.oak-ridge.com