Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D

Notice
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
<-- Date Index --> <-- Thread Index --> [Author Index]

framesplitter terminology


  • From: P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: framesplitter terminology
  • Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 20:16:25 -0400

>Dr. George A. Themelis writes:
>
>I personally object to the term "framesplitter" for the following reasons:
>
>4. It does not indicate that this device is used in stereo photography.
>3. It does not even indicate that it has something to do with optics.
>2. It gives no clue about the construction or function of the device.
>1. Most important:  It does not use any Greek words!
>
>BTW, the fact that the "framesplitter" splits a 35 mm full-frame (24 mm x 
>36 mm) to two half-frame images is only incidental.  With a different 
>arrangement of the mirrors it could be placing the two images in different 
>parts of the 35 mm film.  Also, a Nimslo and most lenticular cameras are 
>"framsplitters" in the sense that they create half-frame images.

As everyone knows by know, what I think of defining that mirror
attachment as beamsplitter, here is what I think of framesplitter.

I also object to the term "framesplitter" but for a different reason.
Dr.T, I know you are just quoting someone elses post regarding
the framespitter splitting a 35 mm full-frame, but it doesn't split
a single frame. Not a single one (quoting someone else that used this
phrase for beamsplitters). The "framesplitter" still combines the two 
views to one frame as opposed to most lenticular cameras  which actually 
split the frames for the separate views. (Note I am refering to 
Nimslo,Nishika, 3dMagic,etc., I presume there could be full frame
lenticular cameras out there also.) A half frame camera does the same.
Two separate views on a single frame does not constitute two frames.
Example, if you take snapshots and then take the prints and put them in
those picture frames where you can put a whole bunch of prints together 
to display, you still have one frame. By putting those pictures into the
frame you did not split the frame up. 
One small point, "with a different arrangement of mirrors",it still would
not be possible to put the two images in different parts of the 35mm film,
thus still no frames being split, if we are still talking about a one lens
camera. Summing it up, one lens, one frame.

[-----]  [-----]
[(q p)]  [(q p)]  
[( U )]  [(  U)]      Please don't frame me. Frameless in Montreal, Canada.
[{~~~}]  [{~~~}]
[-----]  [-----]
   cross-eyed
  
Gabriel Jacob
jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
P.S. No my nose is not that long, it is a hyper-stereo shot. 


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