Re: Two Image Lenticulars

[P3D George Gioumousis <georggms@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Leroy Barco wrote
> 
> Larry Berlin writes and [I respond]:
> 
--------------- snip ------------------------
>
> "The idea of viewing it from one angle presupposes that the material itself
> provides different angles ranging from that very narrowly defined vantage
> point. In reality a lenticular viewed from a very carefully stationery point
> requires a number of sets of different pairs, which are made available at the
> different angles. In other words, the lines of coincident pairs from a fixed
> viewpoint are not parallel to each other."
>      [I'm not sure if I understand this, but the idea that a lenticular
> viewing system requires more than one set of stereo pairs is not true.
> Differing geometry of the any lenticular system provides the stereo pair
> "positions" unique to that defining geometry.
>      I think the # of pairs is N minus one where N is the # of single images
> available behind the screen.
>      So a four image system(Nimslo) has three separate stereo views
> available, three image systems have two(ImageTech). Each image doesn't have
> to be in stereo, as in animation lenticulars, or they could be the same
> image, which would be boring to most of us.]
> 
I find the argument hard to follow. In the Nimslo format each little
lens has four stripes under it. The stereo effect comes when the lens
directs each eye to a different stripe.

If, like Nimslo and Nishika, there are four stripes per lens, (say 
numbered 1 2 3 4 from left to right), the viable pairs would be
(left eye-right eye) 4-3 3-2 2-1 4-2 3-1 4-1, depending on the 
eye-to-print distance. I count six pairs.

George G.


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