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]

P3D Re: Instant Anaglyphs, and some more speculation


  • From: Dylan The Hippy Wabbit <spacey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: P3D Re: Instant Anaglyphs, and some more speculation
  • Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:58:51 +0100 (BST)

Hi All,

I disagree with Tom Deering about that anaglyph thing.  If you allow the
images to overlap, which the example on his web site did *not* do, you
would have an anaglyph that worked, but not very well.

Firstly I don't care about the red and blue ball thing.  That's always
going to happen with a "full colour" anaglyph, and it's one reason I don't
think much of them.  (That said I've aquired 6 pairs of anaglyph specs in
the last two months.)

The resulting image would work if you are the sort of person who can
freeview crossed pairs.  Infinity points would be floating in front of
the paper, with a seperation equal to the pinhole spacing.  Everything
else would be even closer.  Basically it is *incredibly* badly windowed.

Perhaps a prism behind each pinhole to move the images closer together
would fix it.  But then once you've started putting glass in you may as
well use lenses.

OK, so here is an idea I've been mulling over recently.  How about an
instant lenticular camera?

The basic idea is a three lensed camera projecting the images onto instant
paper through a standard lenticular layer.  The lents should then split
the images up into the stripes, in the opposite way to viewing a completed
print.

Of course it's not that simple.  The outer lenses would need a similar
beam spreader affair to the Argus/Loreo but less severe.  I haven't fully
sussed out the geometry yet, but the target should be that the three
images would be exactly superimposed without the lenticular layer to
seperate them.  I guess that means it needs half the effect of the Loreo,
right?  Naturally that would mean different path lengths for the outer and
centre lenses.  That could maybe be fixed by having the centre one further
forward, or a slightly different focal length.  I suspect though that for
most 'normal' shots the difference would be neglible.

Now I'll admit I've not learned as much as I'd like about how lenticular
printing works, so I could be totally wrong.  Perhaps some one could point
out any problems I've not seen?

Dave Spacey


______________________________________________________________________________

Walk tall, walk straight,
Spit the world right in the eye.

-Kevin Godley and Lol Creme


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