[MF3D.FORUM:1661] Re: Using front shift to simulate camera movements?

["Don Lopp" <dlopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think a better solution is found on page 113 ofthe book The World of 3-Dby
Jac G. Ferwerda 1990 printed in the Netherlands in English- it requires 2
cameras and a semi translucent ( half silvered) mirror I assumethe intended
use is for macro stereo- I am up at this time of the morniing because  the
pain is such that I can not sleep- I successfully  detoxed  from 4 years of
morphine  but have not found a good replacement as of yet for my 3 back
surgeries   so my thinking is still a bit muddled sorry about that  -DON.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Lopp" <dlopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Medium Format 3D Photography" <MF3D.Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 2:49 AM
Subject: [MF3D.FORUM:1658] Re: Using front shift to simulate camera
movements?


> 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>