Re: Lenticular Thoughts

[P3D Elliott Swanson <elliott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Very interesting piece by LeRoy Barco on lenticular photography. My
understanding of the process is hazy at best, but what LeRoy describes
matches what I've observed in prints. This information tends to support
the viability of lenticular photography as being most suitable to tabletop
work (if I've read it correctly). The best table top work uses many more
than 3 exposures-- the ImageTrack lenticular rail is designed to make up
to 7 exposures to build a photo. At normal lenticular viewing range, even
though a seventh of the image of the information from each image is used,
at normal arms length, the eye is looking at a picture built from the
composite (e.g. individual components are not "seeable") and using the
synthesized image to approximate the cues presented by a solid object. Three
image standard 3D-Wizard lenticulars lose stereo very quickly as you look 
into the background. 3 image table top images, which have controled 
positioning of foreground, key and background objects (calculated via 
the focal length of the lens) can have excellent stereo throughout the 
picture, but tend to put objects into planes. Seven image lenticulars have
smoother depth transitions, but appear softer, which I think matches to what 
LeRoy presents in his article. It also seems to explain why the very 
large 7 negative lenticular looks so much better than the 3.5 x 5 
variety. (all the large lenticular prints I've seen have been tabletop 
setups.)

Thanks for the info, and please set me straight if I have it wrong. I've 
been playing with a Pen FT to make tabletop lenticulars, and would like 
more control of the process.

--Elliott


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