P3D Re: PSSP talk: Barriers to Entry

[Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Larry Berlin writes:
>*****  Maybe I'm mixing apples and oranges, but the idea of encouraging the
>occasional use of toe-in is different than saying the camera system of the
>future should be built with toe-in all the time... (*researching this as a
>platform which may one day define the standard*)
>
>There are good optical reasons to avoid having toe-in under MOST
>circumstances. There are occasions where some toe-in is OK but only IF you
>know what's going on. There are even some circumstances where you might want
>to use small amounts of *toe-out*! If you want to discuss an ideal platform
>for the future, toe-in should NOT be part of that specification, except
>perhaps as an adjustment that some user can make if that's what they want.

I waaas (still am) going to reply to Boris's toe-in stance ;-) but you
just made it easier for me! Thanks Larry. Good points and post!

Comments and questions for Boris..., you wrote:
>I say change the rule to 1/15.  That's a very simple improvement.

How is that an improvement?

>That is what I finally learned was making my closeups difficult to
>view - a distant background.

Maybe toeing-in caused the problem? 

>Okay, I guess I'm overly sensitive on the toe-in thing.

ME TOO! ;-)

>I do mean to shake things up.

If you do that, things will get verrrry blurry! :-)

>I'm working on this.  I'm experimenting with two Olympus XAs, to
>be displayed at the PSSP meeting.  This rig is arguably smaller
>and lighter than the Realist, has autoexposure, shoots full frame
>twin rolls of film, has a TOE-IN feature, so that the slides are
>instantly viewable as they come back from the processor.

Hmmm, interesting. I have a twin rig (not wired but synchronizes 
very well) that has an ANTI-TOE-IN (patent pending) feature.
Joking about the patent but not about the feature. 


Not to get the impression that I disagree with everything Boris
writes:

>and they don't want to mount slides!

Ah yes, sore point for me too! I prefer shooting 2x2x2 (but with
no toe-in). 

>Inconvenience in processing, post-processing, and viewing.

Very true! So Boris what are you proposing? :-) I'm all ears,
or should I say, (or should I write!) eyes! ;-)

Dr.T speculated View-Magic and is what I was thinking also. Works
fine for BTW. For me the biggest obstacle is an inexpensive full
frame 3-D camera (not twin camera). If it was mass produced I believe
it could be made for less than $500 easily. The only other camera
that comes close to an ideal "system" is the Loreo/Argus, but the
images are a bit soft for most people's (including myself) liking.

Gabriel




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