Pinhole stereo

[P3D Jim Crowell <crowell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sat, 6 Jul 96 17:28:34 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sender: pnovak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>To: Jim Crowell <crowell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>From: Pedro Novak Domicelj <pnovak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: stuff...
>
[deleted]
>
>BUT, I've done an awfully little bit of pinhole-camera experimenting, though
>I have read much, -well, much in Peru doesn't mean more than a few
>pages...- about this and do believe that the quality, however measured
>(MTF is it? Definition, resolution...) makes pinhole cameras
>useful in an invert proportion to their size. I believe, think
>I remember, having
>tried pinholes of varying formulations (the actual f-number/format seems
>still to be in debate, no?) and concluding that the ideal format is
>LARGE, wherefore your suggestion it seems to me might require some
>theoretical jusification.
>

Pedro,

Good point--there'd probably be a tradeoff, with smaller
aperture/"focal length" ratios giving you better resolution but
longer exposure times.

On the other hand, given that we're not talking about
Tessar-quality optics here, it probably woudn't hurt anything to
crank the film speed up to 1600 (negative, I'd think; the grain
is less noticeable than with fast slide film)...So maybe it
would be possible to move the pinhole a bit farther from the
film plane...Or one could follow John B's suggestion & use
multiple flashes, either sequential (no bug shots though) or
simultaneous (if you didn't mind blinding the bug)...

-Jim C.


------------------------------------------------
Jim Crowell
School of Optometry
360 Minor Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-2020
(510) 642-7679
jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://john.berkeley.edu/IndividualPages/jim.html



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