Re: current Kodak mounting (really camera tilting)

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> What I don't see is why this is any more or less important in a stereo
> camera than in a single-lens camera.  When I tilt my head from the
> vertical, I don't suddenly stop being able to fuse reality into a stereo
> image.  I would expect that tilting the camera would have exactly the same
> effect.  Yes, the horizon line would not be parallel to the top and bottom

I've tried taking a stereo shot with the camera at 90 degrees from normal
(just for fun).

The difference between 2D and 3D is this: when you do that with a 2D, you just
turn the print or slide to make it vertical.  Slide would have to be 90 degree
increments -- but the more common print can be rotated easy enough at any angle.

With 3D the head turns instead, and it still really doesn't work right.  In
the test case I mentioned above, what happens is that when looking in the viewer,
a person will tilt their head the same 90 degrees to make things align "right"
to the earth/gravity.  Kinda funny, but true.

So, tilting the camera *does* still work and one still does fuse the images,
it just creates neck-aches.  :-)

In the Cascade Stereo Club's showing last night there was one with a slightly
tilted horizon that was commented on ("a no-no") but which really didn't seem
to make much difference to me (they were flashed a bit quickly so my attention
may just have been elsewhere), so sensitivity may vary from person to person
as well.

To maintain the question/argument pool, I offer this variation:  If photographing
an image where there is a low mountain ridge in the distance that slopes left to
right -- but you really can't tell it's a ridge (say, an evening shot) unless you
live there and know about it -- do the rules of competition say that one has to
slant the foreground to make the horizon level, have an uneven horizon, or is it 
a hopeless case? 

 :-)

Mike K.


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