[MF3D.FORUM:1658] Re: Using front shift to simulate camera movements?

["Don Lopp" <dlopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Plus the angle covered would be relatively narrow DON
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Glickman" <bglick@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Medium Format 3D Photography" <MF3D.Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 12:31 AM
Subject: [MF3D.FORUM:1657] Re: Using front shift to simulate camera
movements?


> 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
> >
>
>