Re: Requirement (8-perf)

[wchang@xxxxxxxxxx (William Chang)]

(copy of email to cy@xxxxxxxxxxx)

In my opinion 8-perf is a requirement, because the film can then be
processed anywhere.  Anything other than 8-perf will be inconvenient,
expensive, time-consuming, etc.  Last year (?) I posted some messages
on PHOTO-3D about this.  One way to do 8-perf without a "loop" in the
film path, is to do the following:
 
 -XXXXXXX -YYYYYYY XXXXXXX- YYYYYYY- -ZZZZZZZ etc.
 
where the XXXXXXX pair is separated by the normal interocular distance
but have opposite _cropping_ within each 8-perf 24x36 frame.  This way,
ViewMagic users can get 1-hour prints done anywhere, slide-viewer users
can use standard slide processing (provided the viewer has masks and   
interocular adjustment), and picky professionals can use some kind of  
a special cutter that leaves each pair in one piece (attached at the   
top or bottom by the perforated strip).  The interocular distance of   
such a camera might be made adjustable (i.e. slide the lenses together)
at the cost of (adjustably) narrower (cropped) picture area.  If the   
lenses are small enough, perhaps both halves of a macro stereo pair    
can be placed in one frame.
 
My point is, if one is willing to "crop" (in or out of camera) then the
machinery and processing can be kept simple and cost-effective.  If what
a (potential) manufacturer wants is _proprietary processing_, then the  
above is obviously out -- but otherwise it looks to me to have a better 
chance of public acceptance than any non-8-perf system.
 
I would buy such a camera :-) especially since the incremental cost of
using it -- time and money -- should be low.
 
BTW, I would pay $$$ for a WYSIWYG stereo camera -- i.e. like an SLR.
But one that I can _compose_ in stereo, set focusing and preview depth
of field (in at least one view/eye), etc.  I think it would be a lot  
easier to sell a stereo camera that has some kind of stereo WYSIWYG   
than one that does not. 
 
(FYI: a macro that I submitted to PHOTO-3D's 3d@xxxx called "jewel" was
the result of bracketing everything, interocular & focus & DOF/aperture,
on a whole roll of film, after waiting a year for the plant to flower   
and then to wither perfectly, NOT KNOWING whether anything would come out
or whether I'd have a second chance.  If I had to wait several weeks for 
the film to be developed, there obviously wouldn't be a second chance.   
If I had to hand-mount a whole roll to find the best pair, I'd not have  
bothered.  The cost ($10 for film and processing, quick turn-around) was 
acceptable to me, but had it been more I probably would not have experimented
as I did, and possibly would have missed "the shot", which won a prize in    
3d@xxxx -- thanks Elliot, what a nice surprise!  Because I use the wonderful 
ViewMagic I can pretty much ignore the cost factor and experiment away...)   
 
Best regards,
 
William Chang (wchang@xxxxxxxxxx)


------------------------------