Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1335

[P3D Wayne Penrod <ima2mer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
>                             PHOTO-3D Digest 1335
> 
> Topics covered in this issue include:
> 
>   1) Re: Revere 33 for sale at Cameta Camera
>         by P3D  <gtank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   2) Series V filters
>         by P3D allan carrano  <allan.carrano@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   3) New View-Master Reels
>         by P3D Harry Kleinsmiede zur  <101576.2026@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   4) Re: Camera Obscura Lenses
>         by P3D Edward Hosey <ehh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   5) Re: Single-lens Stereo
>         by P3D William Carter  <wc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   6) kudo
>         by P3D Elliott Swanson  <elliott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   7) Another camera obscura room
>         by P3D  <gosfield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   8) Re:  Stereogram Billboards?
>         by P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>
>   9) CASCADE STEREOSCOPIC CLUB MEETING
>         by P3D Shab Levy <shab@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>  10) Re: Stereogram Billboards?
>         by P3D Larry Berlin  <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>
>  11) SIRD camera...
>         by P3D Allan Woods <allanwx@xxxxxxxxxx>
>  12) Denver Camera Show
>         by P3D Bob Wier <wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>  13) Re: kudo
>         by P3D Eric Goldstein  <egoldste@xxxxxxxxxx>
>  14) 3 Lens Lenticular and Stereo Pairs?
>         by P3D Jerry_Gore <jgore@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>  15) kodalux, grain, and blackness
>         by P3D Todd Eifert  <eifert19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>  16) Lenticular Thoughts
>         by P3D  <LeRoyDDD@xxxxxxx>
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 08:52:34 -0500
> From: P3D  <gtank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Revere 33 for sale at Cameta Camera
> Message-ID: <9605151352.AA44827@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> FWI
> >IIRC, someone on this list was desparate for a Revere 33.
> >Cameta Camera is advertising one in "E++" condition, in box, for $299.
> 
> Save your quarter, I called, It is SOLD!
> 
> Gregory A. Tank
> gtank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 96 09:53:01 EST
> From: P3D allan carrano  <allan.carrano@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Series V filters
> Message-ID: <9604158321.AA832180331@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
>      In digest 1334 Ted Gosfield wrote:
> 
>      >NEW multicoated Series V filters can be ordered by your local
>      >superior retail photography store, from Tiffen, for a mere $29.95
>      >discounted price.  Not very motivating for me, i am afraid.  Abbey
>      >Camera in Phila offered to order them for me.  Gee--if i had a German
>      >2.8 would i have to use B & W or Heliopan filters?
> 
>      I didn't realize Tiffen, or anyone else, still made Series filters.
>      Is that true?  Or is it that there's old stock still available at
>      Tiffen?  Can anyone elaborate on the availability of "new" Series
>      filters?
> 
>      Allan
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 11:43:29 -0400
> From: P3D Harry Kleinsmiede zur  <101576.2026@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Mail to 3d mailing list <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: New View-Master Reels
> Message-ID: <199605151142_MC1-3FE-66EF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Dear View-Master friends,
> 
> I am a new member of the 3-D Mailing List, and I enjoy reading all those
> messages. Since 1985, I publish - as a hobby - books and albums that, for
> the most part, use View-Master Reels for the 3-D imagery, for instance the
> book "View-Master Viewers - An Illustrated History" by Mary Ann and
> Wolfgang Sell.
> I also publish the book "The World of 3-D; a practical guide to stereo
> photography" by Jac.G. Ferwerda.
> 
> If you want my new list, please, send me an e-mail. In this list, I offer
> two new publications:
> 
> "A World Adventure": three scouting reels of 18th World Jamboree
> "Hut and House Wittgenstein": eight reels from Holland House in Denmark,
> photographed in Norway and Vienna.
> 
> So, if you have interest in my list, let me know.
> 
> Harry zur Kleinsmiede
> 101576.2026@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 07:56:53 -0700
> From: P3D Edward Hosey <ehh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Camera Obscura Lenses
> Message-ID: <199605151456.HAA02917@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Bob wrote:
> >
> >In thinking about the C.O. at Colorado Springs, I can't
> >remember whether it was a pinhole arrangement or used a lens
> >at that point. Be that as it may, it occurs to me that
> >the image *should* be upside down. Can anyone say how this
> >is fixed? Two lenses? Mirrors?
> 
> I am pretty certain that the one in SF did not correct for this.  Or if
> it did, it was somewhat inconsequential because the lens rotates 360
> degrees *and* projects from the ceiling onto a table--the viewer simply
> walks around to get the *right* prespective at any point during the
> shot.  I do know that the image was *not* reversed.
> 
> --
> Eddie Hosey
> ehh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Take a second--breathe deeply--and think about what you enjoy most in life.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 10:07:30 -0700
> From: P3D William Carter  <wc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Linnstaedt@xxxxxxx
> Cc: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Single-lens Stereo
> Message-ID: <960515100946.ZM2639@xxx>
> 
> Robert, you wrote:
> 
> "The pictures were amazing because, without the anaglyph glasses the
> print looked like a normal 2D with slightly off-color cast.  But for the
> most part, viewable in either 2D or 3D."
> "He said he was able to download instructions and info from the 'web but
> couldn't recall the URL.  Can anyone be of help here?  I would like to
> try this on SLR and 8mm Video, though there may be parameters of which I
> am ignorant, making video impractical."
> 
> The stereo device you refer to was first introduced by a guy named Jimmy
> Songer, back in the early '70s. It was later marketed (just as soon as
> Jimmy's patent expired) in a badly misconcieved form by Tiffen, under
> the name "Q-DOS".
> 
> This form of SL3-D is implemented by dividing a lens aperture (usually
> where the shutter or iris is/are) into left and right halves using some
> color and it's complement. Traditionally, these have been red and cyan.
> The reason being that red and cyan each transmit about the same amount
> of visible light. And, much like a ship or airplane, red is left, and
> cyan is right. Further, by selecting a pair of two-color separation
> filters eg. Wratten No.s 44a and 25, you can avoid much of the
> "off-color cast" your friend encountered. But, you'll need to avoid
> shooting anything bright red.
> 
> The rest is to simply open 'er up, cut and paste, and close. I use
> leather punches to cut with (not necessary), and contact cement to paste
> with (what ever).
> 
> I feel much the same about SL3-D (incidentally, that's a term I coined
> severall years ago) as Dr. T. seems to feel about his Realists. It has a
> great many advantages over multi-lens 3-D, and it's much better than
> sliced bread. And, like Dr. T., I would look forward to assisting you in
> any way I can.
> 
> 
> 
> --
>                 wc@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>     37deg 39.09'N x 122deg 29.56'W x 90'MLLW
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 10:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
> From: P3D Elliott Swanson  <elliott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: kudo
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960515100313.1563A-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Just a kudo to Ted Gosfield for his research on Scala and filtration. I
> love material like this that is practical and useful for actually getting
> out there and taking pictures. Theory is ok, but doing is where it's at.
> 
> Thank you Ted!
> 
> --Elliott
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:11:59 -0400 (EDT)
> From: P3D  <gosfield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Another camera obscura room
> Message-ID: <199605151711.NAA02400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> hi
> 
> since noone else mentioned it--there is a camera obscura on the promenade
> in Santa Monica,CA,  near 2nd and Wilshire, on the cliffs overlooking the
> Pacific Coast Highway.  Unfortunately, in the 10 years i lived in LA i
> never managed to get inside the 'camera'.  I forget if it was closed for
> repairs or what.
> 
> ted
> gosfield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 11:50:51 -0700
> From: P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re:  Stereogram Billboards?
> Message-ID: <199605151850.LAA09720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Chuck Field writes:
> 
> >  I can free view antique stereo views fine, though it still takes me up to
> >a minute to get them in focus.   BTW... when I free view stereo views, am I
> >doing it cross-eyed or parallel viewing?
> 
> You could conceivably be doing it either way.  If the stereo effect seems
> to be reversed (distant objects seem to be in front of near objects), then
> you're crossing your eyes.  If (most) of them seem to have proper stereo
> effect, then you're parallel viewing.  (I say "most" because I have seen
> some pseudo'd stereo views.)  The "correct" way is to parallel view.
> 
> I can do either.  However, I'm very nearsighted, and I find that I must
> look over the top of my glasses or remove them, to parallel view stereo
> views held close to my face; otherwise the image is out-of-focus.  On the
> other hand, when viewing cross-eyed, I must keep my glasses on and get
> fairly close, in order to keep the image in focus.  I find parallel
> viewing to be less of a strain generally, but repeatedly removing and
> replacing my eyeglasses gets rough on the ears.
> 
> For some reason, I found that I was only able to fuse the images in the
> Harold Lloyd book if the book was at arm's length or greater.  I don't
> have this problem with antique stereo views.  I thought these used
> approximately the same separation and image size; why the difference?
> 
>         -Greg
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 12:25:33 -0800
> From: P3D Shab Levy <shab@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: CASCADE STEREOSCOPIC CLUB MEETING
> Message-ID: <v01530500adbfed3dad64@[206.163.120.190]>
> 
> Cascade Stereoscopic Club Meeting
> 
> The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 22 at 7 pm at the Cedar
> Hills Parks and Recreation Center: 11640 SW Parkway, Portland, OR. The
> Center is about  6 miles from downtown Portland. By car, go west on 26 to
> the Cedar Hills Blvd. exit then south on the same blvd.,  for about 1/2
> mile. The Center is at the corner of SW Cedar Hills Blvd. and SW Parkway.
> 
> We made arrangements with the New Zealand Stereoscopic Club for an exchange
> of slides by members of the two clubs. (Thank you Judy Fentress!)
> 
> We would like then to invite all members of the club to bring to the next
> meeting, up to 3 slides for possible inclusion in the package that will go
> to New Zealand. The package needs to be shipped by the end of June. Because
> this announcement may be too short for some of the members to be ready with
> slides, we will discuss at the meeting what to do with late submissions.
> All members will vote on all submissions and will select the ones for the
> package.
> 
> The slides should be STANDARD STEREO FORMAT. This means mounts with outside
> nominal dimensions of 41 mm x 101 mm. The frame openings inside can be of
> any size or shape, for example Realist size of 5 perforations, European
> size of 7 perforations or full size of 8 perforations, AS LONG AS the
> outside is STANDARD and can be projected with existing projectors that use
> the standard size mounts.
> 
> As a challenge when mounting, please keep the infinity distance points
> around 65 mm and unless done on purpose, keep the nearest object on the
> scene AT or behind the stereo window.
> 
> This opportunity is open to members only, so here is your chance to become
> one right away.
> 
> Shab Levy, Portland, Oregon, USA
> shab@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:12:23 -0700
> From: P3D Larry Berlin  <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Stereogram Billboards?
> Message-ID: <199605152012.NAA02697@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> >>I wrote:
> >>"Perhaps I'm a bit unique when it comes to viewing 3D images, but I did
> >>some experiments with stereograms created with a cell size of 4 
>inches.
> >>The purpose was to determine if the diminishment of distance would enable
> >>parallel viewing from a great distance and possibly make stereogram bill
> >>boards a possibility."
> 
> >Chuck Field wrote:
> >  Ummm.... sounds cool, but... a bit scary too.  I just imagine that there'd
> >be too many accidents caused by too many folks trying to focus on the views
> >at 40 MPH.
> >  Now maybe I only feel this way because I have so much trouble seeing SIRDS.
> >  I can free view antique stereo views fine, though it still takes me up to
> >a minute to get them in focus.   BTW... when I free view stereo views, am I
> >doing it cross-eyed or parallel viewing?
> >Thanx, it's just my 2 cents worth,
> >Chuck Field  <ECF004@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I thought about the safety issue too and explored it with a rep from one of
> the bill board companies. He described a number of cases where something on
> a billboard perhaps indirectly contributed to an accident. The
> responsibility for driving still rests with the driver. He indicated that if
> it were possible or easy to see stereogram billboards they wouldn't hesitate
> to use them.
> 
> It turns out that few would be able to see them in stereo even parked and
> with several hours to try. I am able to see them but it isn't as easy as
> viewing a book or poster. There are too many possible distractions to the
> attention necessary. I had to try it just for the experience but it doesn't
> seem to be a practical pursuit.
> 
> Another fun but non-practical idea is to place stereogram markings on
> pavement and view the blurred markings in crossed mode while driving and
> using the hood of your car as the focal point. Perhaps with a stereogram of
> a snake. It would appear to be literally in front of the car and above the
> pavement. This could be used with rollercoaster rides too. It's the type of
> special effect only available to those with a relatively easy facility at
> seeing the different types of stereograms. On the down side, motion effects
> would dictate a rather low resolution and the use of large image elements as
> well as the fact that only a relatively small area of the image is available
> at any given moment.
> 
> As to whether you are using crossed or parallel viewing it depends on your
> natural abilities and the arrangement of the images. Several people I know
> of seem to look at stereograms in a crossed mode before getting it right in
> a parallel mode. If the images aren't too large or far apart, you are
> probably using parallel. The determining factor is whether the apparent
> image is in front of the actual image pair (crossed) or if it is behind the
> actual images (parallel).
> 
> Thanks for the comments,
> 
> Larry Berlin
> 
> Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:19:35 -0700
> From: P3D Allan Woods <allanwx@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: SIRD camera...
> Message-ID: <199605152019.NAA12998@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> It is good to see the list so active and interest ranging to many
> topics, among them Stereo Photography  ;-)
> 
> I have been looking, with little success (so, in keeping, I turn
> to the members of this list) for a camera to take those SIRDs I
> see from time to time in newspapers, magazines and all too often
> in poster shops...
> 
> Are they taken with one of those "single-lens-stereo" cameras?
> Is that how it's done?  Or is there some special attachment or
> filter made from bathroom window glass which, when used with a
> Reaslist, makes the image...?
> 
> Or, should I get one of those cameras manufactured by insects
> with multiple eyes and send the film to some far away place so
> they can keep it until I ask for it back?
> 
> And... where can I get/how can I get the cut out of the duck to
> float in front of the background, assuming I could take one of
> those pictures?
> 
> Is there some different kind of camera I need?  Can I use one
> that I have and modify it by dropping it on the lenses?
> 
> Am I doing anything right?
> Am I doing anything wrong?
> Am I taking my medication?
> 
> Any ideas would be welcome.
> 
> Thank you so much for your patience.
> 
>     (come along now...)
> 
> allanwx@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 15:37:04 -0500
> From: P3D Bob Wier <wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Denver Camera Show
> Message-ID: <v01540b09adbff077b853@[192.43.199.81]>
> 
> According to the Jan/Feb Stereo World, there *should* be a camera
> fair (meet?) in Denver this weekend. I *might* be in the area. Has anyone
> been to that? Is it worthwhile from a stereo point point of view  view
> 
> :-)   :-)
> 
> thanks
> 
>  -------- Bob Wier ----- wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----
>           Wednesday, May 15, 1996  3:36:24 PM
>   East Texas State University Computer Science Dept.
>    keeper of the Motorola MC68HC11, ICOM Radio, and
>  Overland-Trails mailing lists and the LDS Genealogy
>             State Research Outlines
>      "Con*gress - n. - the antonym of Pro*gress"
>         stereo smiley      : -)        :  - )
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 16:45:14 -0500
> From: P3D Eric Goldstein  <egoldste@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: kudo
> Message-ID: <319A506A.5F98@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> P3D Elliott Swanson wrote:
> 
> 
> > Just a kudo to Ted Gosfield for his research on Scala and filtration. I
> > love material like this that is practical and useful for actually getting
> > out there and taking pictures.
> 
> Man, I'm with you 100%. I, too, enjoyed Ted's post on filters, film, and real picture
> taking. IMHO, this is the best stuff the list has to offer, and I learn alot from the
> real photographers out there...
> 
> Maybe someday I'll be one, too. (That is, a real photographer, not a list. Maybe
> someday, I'll learn how to write.)
> 
> And while we're at it, Elliots work on "stingy Steinheils" for the Kodak is pretty
> cool stuff... amazing what a little imagination and a dremel can do in the right
> hands.
> 
> Now, back to debating the finer points of the actual focal lengths of the lenses on
> hundred-year-old viewers... 8-}
> 
> Eric G.
> egoldste@xxxxxx
> egoldste@xxxxxx
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 17:27:29 -0500
> From: P3D Jerry_Gore <jgore@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 3 Lens Lenticular and Stereo Pairs?
> Message-ID: <199605152120.QAA31234@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Dumb question from a newbie:
> Is there a way to make a 3 lens Lenticular camera, like the 3D Wizard,
> take stereo pairs by covering up the middle lens? I'm just considering
> options before I go out and buy Nimslo or something.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 18:03:29 -0500 (CDT)
> From: P3D Todd Eifert  <eifert19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (photo-3d)
> Subject: kodalux, grain, and blackness
> Message-ID: <199605152303.SAA13485@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I just got my slides back from kodalux taken at the Pete Twonshend show;
> House of Blues.  I was shooting KM25.  I asked them to push the film two
> stops and the resulting slides look very grainy.  The roll had some other
> shots taken at the zoo that seem fine.  They are not overexposed even
> though I took them before the concert and didn't plan on the 2stop push.
> The concert images are ok.  The dark areas around Townshend are very
> grainy and not deep black as I would have liked.  Is there anyway of
> telling for sure if they pushed the film?  It has a Kodalux Processing R
> stamp on the film.  Anyone have any experience with pushing film care to
> pontificate.  It seems to me that the KM25 had a broader exposure
> latitude than I had surmised.
> 
> Todd Eifert  Memphis TN USA
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 19:40:08 -0400
> From: P3D  <LeRoyDDD@xxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Lenticular Thoughts
> Message-ID: <960515194007_114407693@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
>      There's been some bandwidth on lenticular prints recently...
> 
>      The major problem I see with lenticular prints is the reduced depth;
> both as reduced percentage image parallax on the negatives and reduced
> absolute image parallax in the typically viewed print.
> 
>      The reduced percentage image parallax problem:
>      With the three and four lens 35mm lenticular variants, the separation
> between lenses is about 18mm, 3/4in. Nominal interocular of 65mm is 3.6 times
> that.
>      So objects in the lenticular print scene at 50 feet, which still have
> reasonable, pleasant 3-D effect with "normal" stereophotographic systems,
> will have the relief of objects at 180 feet in the "normal" system. That
> distance is at or near "stereo infinity." Don't take lenticular prints of
> landscapes!
> 
>      The reduced absolute image parallax problem:
>      This has to do with the size of the viewed print.
>      The 3 1/2 x 5 inch lenticular print is only about 2 inches "deep."
>      For background... in the Realist format systems, if one projects  with
> infinity points separated by two to two and a half inches, then moves the
> screen until the frame edges are superimposed(may take a larger screen than
> most of us have), the result is(mostly) what the camera saw... and if you
> view it from the camera natural window distance you've got ORTHO! At least if
> *your* interocular is about the same as the lens spacing of the camera.
>       And the view is as "deep" as it can get.
>      In the above setup, if you move the screen away from you(and it's big
> enough to keep the frame edges on the screen and refocusing of course) the
> only result will be the stereo "window" will stay in place at the same
> distance... but seem to "come off the screen."
>      If you move the screen closer, the window will stay fixed in space, but
> seem to be "sunk into the screen." As you bring the screen closer, the actual
> size of the images will be smaller and the edges will separate.
>      With typical home size screens of about 50 to 60 inches, we commonly
> just superimpose the mask edges on the screen and accept an infinity
> separation of one to two inches. With not much for comparison, the 3-D(kinda,
> almost, maybe Ortho) illusion of reality still holds up fairly well since
> convergence(as opposed to image parallax) is one of the weaker cues to 3-D.
>       If you keep moving the screen closer and keep the edges coincident, by
> the time the image is reduced to a width of three and a half inches with
> superimposed edges, the illusion is broken. Infinity points are only
> separated by a fraction of an inch, and apart from the fact you can't get
> close enough for an ortho image size, you can see it's not very "deep." About
> 2 inches, just like the lenticular print.
>      You can get more depth with a larger size lenticular enlargement, but
> even these sacrifice displayed depth by mounting to the "window."
> 
>      Inherent loss of resolution is the other significant problem.
> 
>      Each print has only a given area on which to put the image(s). A
> lenticular print using two images has to throw away half of each image to put
> the stereo pair behind the lenticular screen. A four image print uses only a
> quarter of the information from each image.
>      If you decide to take lenticular prints, use the three lens system if
> possible or at least have your four lens pictures printed only using three
> negatives. This advice is probably less important in smaller print sizes
> where you don't view close enough to see a lot of difference, but would
> become more important the larger the print.
>      When the prints are made, the operator of the print machine typically
> converges what they consider the primary subject at the plane of print
> surface. This results in all the information from that subject plane in all
> the images being used.
>      On inspection, one can see that the objects behind(and in front) of that
> point are much "softer." The best 3-D in lenticular prints have objects in
> front of the main subject so that the "forward" depth in the system is used,
> but those objects will appear softer even if in focus.
> 
>      These disadvantages can be overcome somewhat, but the lenticular print
> in smaller sizes will never be more than what they are. Like color separated
> anaglyphs, they are uniquely themselves, not a stereo transparency or print
> viewed in somewhat ortho conditions.
> 
> LeRoy Barco
> LeRoyDDD@xxxxxxx
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1335
> ***************************
> ***************************
>  Trouble? Send e-mail to
> wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ***************************
Please unsubscibe to PHOTO-3D
	Thank you
	Wayne


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1336
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
***************************