Re: Lenticular image: detailed description

[P3D <PTWW@xxxxxxx>]

John Roberts' research revealed:

>Your description matches my lenticular postcard exactly, with the
>following exceptions:
> - The card is about 5 1/4" high by 4 1/8" wide
> - The tip of the near wing is sharply in focus

In the enlargement, there is something slightly "unsettling" about
the appearance of the wing tip; it might be an aritifact of the
lenticular format rather than a focus problem.  It's appearance might
even be considered somewhat suggestive of motion blur.  Whatever caused
it, it is definitely somewhat less sharp than most of the picture.

> - The mountain in the background does not appear to be underexposed.

In the enlargement I would consider the background mountain *over*
exposed, especially if it were the primary subject matter. As a
background object, it is well within acceptable tolerances, but not
"perfectly" exposed.

> - The apparent depth of the card is perhaps one inch.

This difference is presumably due to the enlargement.  (Does that make
sense, to the len-tex-perts?  It's what I surmised from the old post I
found in the archives.)

John, do you calculate from the most distant object to nearest object,
or from the apparent front surface to the apparent rear surface of the
media?  Also, what kind of bird does it look like to you?  Does the
postcard have a description printed on the back like a regular flattie
postcard?

Does anyone know how common it was for larger size images like this
(10x13) to be made from scenes used for lenticular postcards?

Does anyone have a ballpark figure for what it would cost to produce a
single lenticular enlargement of this size and quality from the original
negatives?

And Bob Wier points out:

>As far as how such a pose might have been captured, well, urp - around
>here people have been known to cart stuffed cougers, etc up into the
>high country to get good wildlife photos.

This is easily plausible for a commercially produced image, which is
what it sounds like this picture most likely is.  I originally
assumed the image was privately produced, but as I learn more about
lenticulars, I get the impression that would not be very likely.

Bob, do you refer to private individuals staging "good wildlife photos"
or commercial images like your Coors truck story?

Thanks for all the feedback!

Paul Talbot


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