P3D Re: PSSP talk: Barriers to Entry

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)]

I've been off-list since Wednesday.  Just slogged through the last ten or
so digests, read a lot of interesting responses to my initiation of this
thread.  I'm not going to quote anyone (I'm too lazy, RM), just make some
comments in general.

If "large time requirements" are a "barrier to entry," then I rest my case
with respect to the R-mount.

Just in from the PSSP meeting: another reason to ditch the R-mount.  When I
projected my slides with twin Ektagraphic carousel projectors (Bill Duggan
was boasting these can be found used for $25 sometimes), I had to focus the
first slide, and that was it.  I admit that some mounting errors had to be
adjusted manually during the show (I did include some slides in the show,
that were "as-processed".  These do often suffer from vertical
misalignments.  Call me lazy.).

Later in the evening, the club competition used a (very expensive?)
Brackett fader projector to show those lovely R-mounts.  NOT A SINGLE SLIDE
came through without needing major adjustment in focus, left or right, or
both.  Some slides were never adequately focussed, because it was
apparently too much trouble.  I don't know if mounting errors could not be
adjusted out - but they were visible to some extent, and we lived with
them.

I invite anyone who attended this meeting to support me in the contention,
that the 2x2 slide show went much more smoothly, at least with respect to
focus, than the showing of the R-mount slides.

(Of course, I realize this may be a problem only with this Brackett
dissolver that was used.  My experience was similar in October, during the
judging of the Potomac Salon.)

Yes, for a future "standard" stereo camera, toe-in is obviously not ideal.
The variable lens offset, resultant stereo window incidentally synched to
focus, is the solution to stereo mounting-free processing.  The Germans
made a camera like this once (maybe others as well).

Someone on this list did tell me once, that in stereo cinematography, it is
standard to toe-in.  Must have something to do with studio's laziness in
post processing...

Yes, prints are an excellent way to start with 3d.  I know, because that's
how I started, as well.  Two single use cameras (mounted base to base) with
the "twin finger synch."

If anyone wants to introduce me to some non-anorexic models, I'll be more
than happy to carefully and lovingly photograph them.  YOU try to get
beautiful, voluptuous, shapely women to pose for you - then get back to me.

About the appropriateness of vertical format to various subject matters.
He who is hard-pressed to find subjects for vertical stereo: look harder.
Of course I sometimes struggle with vertical format, even abandon it (like
when my models are on a bed)!  But for stereo in general, I feel that
vertical format makes more sense.  I posted this once before: Imagine
yourself on a flat surface (like standing in any kind of natural terrain).
Along what visual axis do you get the most sensation of depth, vertical or
horizontal?  Enough said?  Unless you are standing next to a wall, any
vertical line is more likely to give you interesting depth.  It is also
easier to visualize depth along a vertical axis:  since the disparities are
always horizontal, it is easier to perceive the progression of depth along
a line that is perpendicular to the disparities.  (Don't ask me why.  It's
a feeling I have.  Vertigo is visceral.)

Twin Rig snapshooting?  Okay.  Is the Western Poet in residence listening?
I challenge Dr. T to a shoot out at Green Bay.  Who can shoot 36 full frame
stereo pairs faster: me with my Olympus twin rig, or the Dr. with his
Realist (obviously not), or RBT S-1.  The shootout/race will include post
processing and viewing to edit out the duds.

Why is the 1/15 rule better?  It invariably produces images of greater
stereoscopic effect and interest.  Granted, it may produce images that are
difficult to view, if the background is too distant... or difficult to
project, because of disparity problems.

On the twin XA rig.  My baseplates for the two cameras are thin aluminum,
the kind you find as faceplate for rack mounted electronic equipment.  The
"hinge" is a bicycle spoke riding in a groove on each plate near the front
edge of the rig.  The plates are clamped onto the spoke with two strong
small spring clips, like the ones to hold a stack of papers together.
Interaxial separation works out to 63mm, just the same as my eyes.

Boris

Boris Starosta            boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
                          http://www.starosta.com
usa 804 979 3930          http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase



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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 3257
***************************