[MF3D.FORUM:1657] Re: Using front shift to simulate camera movements?

["Bill Glickman" <bglick@xxxxxxxx>]

Tom

        I'm not understanding this....  If you look forward you see an
image, if you turn 90 deg and use one mirror at 45 deg, you will see the
same image.  So why wouldn't the film see the same thing looking in the
mirror?  Are you sure you would have to view the slide with the emulsion
side away from our eyes to get the same effect as if the cameras shot
straight at the scene?  Hmmmm..if so, that does not sound good, but then
again we look straight through the slides anyway?

Bill g

> 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
>