P3D Fast/Slow shutter speeds, etc.

["Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Michael and welcome to photo-3d!

>I ordered a stereo lens system from pentax (thats low end, I know,
>no flames please)...

It depends how you define "low end".  It is my understanding that this
system is very expensive.  Did you order it through Pentax directly?
Would you mind telling us how much it costs?  There has been a lot 
of discussion on "beamsplitters" vs. conventional photography in past
digests.  Perhaps you can read these if you are interested to read
some advantages and shortcomings of the "stereo adapter" approach.

>I guess that if you combine highspeed shutter
>with stereo images there could be some amazing results you normally can not
>see with your eyes.... you could really freeze smoke/fire, waterfalls and 
>something like that, which our eyes (or brain) are not capable of seeing, 
>since they are not fast enough.

I am not sure why you are saying that the eyes cannot see fire, smoke
or waterfalls.  Our eyes cannot "freeze" these motions but can certainly
observe them... On the other hand, they cannot observe much faster
moving objects, like bullets, etc.  Two areas of high speed stereo
photography are done with a single stereo camera and a sound-triggered
flash to freeze motion (Franklin Flocks in this list has done a lot of 
work in this area) and using well-synchronized twin camera systems to 
freeze action in sports, etc., usually in combination with longer lenses 
(Allan Griffin in Australia is known for his work in this second area.)

>Also has anybody of you experimented with slow shutter speeds (more than a
>second), which should capture movements in 3D?

Sure, that's easier to do... Just set the camera in a tripod at low
light (or with neutral density filters) and open the shutter around
moving people or traffic and "see what develops".  Images of moving
cars or people are recorded as blurred ghosts...  See also my earlier 
posting about the "creative blur" assignment in Detroit.  

One interesting group in this area is recording traces of moving light 
sources.  Ted Lambert of NY has produced some spectacular images using 
a stereo camera with shutter open and possibly moving and colored light 
bulbs.  (I think this method has been given a name... "spinographs"?)  
I have a few of his slides and they are so good that it is hard to 
believe that these (late 60s images) were not produced with a computer.  
Today, John Braid from KS is known for doing similar work with "light
paintings", etc.

>I am already excited to experiment with these things and I do agree
>that the more experimental and artificial things seem to be much more
>interesting than just a realistic shot.

It is a matter of interpretation and personal taste... Experimental and
artificial pictures are great both for the maker and the viewer.
But have you seen some of the better examples of "realistic" stereo
photography?  Maybe you have not, because they are not easy to come
by... It is not that you can lift the stereo camera and record a 
spectacular stereo picture with tremendous impact and interest.
Good photography takes time, needs planning (luck too), knowledge
and imagination.  In many respects, it is much more difficult that
just getting an interesting effect by separating two cameras or
using slow shutter speeds.

In my mind, the accomplished photographer is the person who has
achieved both:  Interesting, innovative and creative both experimental
and "ordinary" photography.  But, I understand that this is not an
easy goal to achieve because of the tendency that people have to
specialize in one area...

George Themelis


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