Re: [photo-3d] Re: Camera separation in stereo photography

["don lopp" <dlopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am puzzled as to why thes messages are fragmented into bits and pieces in
stead of being presented as printed , WHY ??? Is it being done by a mindless
computer or what Don.
----- Original Message -----
From: "don lopp" <dlopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] Re: Camera separation in stereo photography


> So far I have been quite disappointed in the dicussion about camera
> separation , it appears to me a case of the Blind trying to lead the Blind
> with useless prattle about something  they know little about Don.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Abram Klooswyk" <abram.klooswyk@xxxxxx>
> To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 5:57 AM
> Subject: [photo-3d] Re: Camera separation in stereo photography
>
>
> > When Boris Starosta recently brought up the stereo base
> > issue again (ofd calculator, May 24, 2000) I was surprised
> > that so few and so quiet answers came.
> >
> > But now the issue seems to get it usual semi-religious flavor
> > again, and appropriate body armor is taken out of the armory.
> > Of course I cannot resist swinging my mace.
> >
> > Discussing camera lens separation without speaking of the way
> > of viewing is meaningless in my opinion.
> > In this thread (so far) only Greg Erker did it, I believe.
> >
> > A funny thing about Stephen Spicer's reaction on Ray Moxom's
> > article in the Sydney Stereo Camera Club's "3d Window"
> > (now at http://www.egroups.com/files/photo-3d/  -  BTW, from
> > which issues of the 3d Window do these articles come?)
> > is that Steve says that Ray, among the other "primary elements
> > controlling the geometry of stereo photography", speaks about
> > "viewer-lens focal length". However, I find no mentioning of
> > that element in Ray's piece.
> >
> > Abram Klooswyk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>