Re: Opinions about 1/30 rule versus eye seperation

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Grant Campos writes

>>Just a thought.  Maybe thats why the Nimlso works for 
>>me; my pupils are about 62 mm apart.

Dr. George A. Themelis replies

>Just a thought.  Maybe it works for you because you have not tried
>anything else yet.  Maybe it works for you because you are afraid of using
>a fully manual, heavy, old, stereo camera which could potentially give you
>better 3d pictures.    
                                                      
Hey I think this is the real George. The real George would never say
anything good about the Nimslo! ;-)
Your insinuation above leads one to believe the Nimslo is not as good
as a Realist. The imposter said, and I quote.

>I promise I am not going to badmouth the Nimslo again!

>Steve sent two Nimslo slides.  One was taken at Halloween, a colorful
>slide with a flash at close range of people dressed up.  This is a good
>one.  Sharpness is as good as the best that come out of the Realist. 
>Colors, composition, mounting, all first rate.  The second slide is an
>interesting picture of a person eating lunch at Grand Canyon (in the back-
>ground.  This one is fine too.  Based on these pictures, I am convinced
>that the (unmodified) Nimslo can take good pictures, in many cases as good
>as a Realist or an equivalent 5p stereo camera, or even better for 
>close-up applications (especially in projection) due to the shorter lens'
>spacing. I agree that the Nimslo's light weight and fully-automatic
>operation can be a big plus too.  The Nimslo is the best camera if it is
>going to be either Nimslo or nothing.  While I will continue to use my
>Realist for most of my everyday stereo photography, thanks to Steve, I now
>have a much better appreciation of what a Nimslo can really do.

You mention a 50's 3d camera has the potential to be better. In what regard.
Sharpness? Grant is not referring to the quality issue, which in any case
you say is good, I think????????? He is referring to, the 3d effect which
alot of people have commented as not having enough separation to render
good 3d depth. This is not true. The stereo baseline is very adequate for
resolving 3d depth. The problem is mainly the poor resolution of most
lenticular cameras (EXCEPT Nimslo and some other exceptions). This will
manifest itself with relatively shallow depth subjects, such as human
faces. Without the resolution to resolve the parallax, the 3d information
is not there. But if you take an object with the same camera of a fence for
example which has alot of depth then you can see the 3d effect very well to
the point of being excellent. The stereo depth will be more pronounced than
actually viewing the fence, so I always find it strange when people comment
the Nimslo or even the 3 lens lenticulars not having enough stereo base.
The Nimslo is a fine performer in this regard and the 1/30 rule is a 
guideline. In any case the 4 lens Nimslo has a close enough stereo base to
regular 3d cameras and sharpness to boot. As for the 3 lenses lenticular
cameras their stereo base is also very good except for the cardboard effect
in shallow subjects. There are 3 lenses cameras with better optics but
haven't tried them. Incidently I have seen excellent 3d pics so I can 
judge the merits of lenticular 3d pics. ;-)


                 oooo           oooo
Gabriel          
                  /\              /\
              n         o    n         o
                i m s l        i m s l 
                  


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