Beam splitters (and hardly any baseball at all)

[P3D Lew Clayman/K Szafran <kandlew@xxxxxxxxx>]

 Harry Poster writes...

>Lew...you asked about the beam splitters. I sell them, as do most of the
>3D-camera dealers, and nearly every collector has one or had one in their
>collection.    But quality wise, they stink (in general)...

Alright, I buy that (the argument, not the splitter - and the rest of your
points).  However, I'm still after advice on direct-to-digital stereo.  I
have scanned stereo pairs and the generational loss is disturbing (a scanned
print is a copy of a copy of the image).  Scanning slides would be better,
at least in priniciple, but requires more specialized equipment (and is
still a copy of the image).  Also there is the registration problem of
aligning separate images (obviously, this would be overcome with a legit
stereo camera, but the result is still a print to be scanned).  In stereo, a
loss of detail is a loss of contour, and not just some technical hangup of
mine about data preservation.

My thought had been to adapt a splitter to a digital camera, thus capturing
the original image digitally, with no loss of registration.  There ought to
be a better way to skin aforesaid cat... 

So, does anyone know of either (a) a quality digital stereo camera
(preferably still, as video cameras do not in general provide sharp still
images) or (b) a reasonable modification?  

>   If 18.44 meters doesn't perplex every American reader, I know the "bowler
>to batsman" really got to 'em...  :) 

You're right - that really wasn't cricket of me.




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