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

[Greg Erker <erker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I think I know of one difference in measuring deviation >I cosider that when
>one talks of  a deviation o2.5 this means a 2.5mm deviation osomething that
>crosses infinity such as a tree , a building , a pole etc. because  if the
>fore ground is water or grass, you can have much more deviation . That is
>why I try not to have any vericles in the center of my pictures but I think
>the allowable deviation should be based ona verticle in the center crossing
>infinity which is often done by amature stereo photographers. Like I said
>before,I don't  the maximum deviation should be used , instead I think
>whatever wok should be used-up till a couple weeks ago I never measured the
>deviation of my slides .I was under the impression that my stuff looked OK
>,and that I was doing some thing right and I never liked exzagerated stereo
>in any event. One of the best stereo shooters in our club,Warren Callahan
>shot stereo with twin Konicas, 50mm lensesspacd 6 1/2 inches apart, usually,
>allways having the nearest object at least 20 ft. away. He won many awards
>and never had any hypers to worry about which is more than I can say about
>most twin camera shooters. If my memory is correct, the couple that  present
>the Anamorphic stereo slide show at the Conventions are conservative and
>their shows are devoid of any hyper views which fits in with my view a poor
>picture is not in any way improved by being presented in stereo. Don.

  I wonder if anyone (other than us two)
is still reading this :)

  It's true that abrupt deviation changes
are harder to view than smooth ones. So
a tree at 7' in front of a mountain scene
(at infinity) is harder to fuse than a
lakeshore (near point at 7') going off
to infinity.

  Within a factor of 2 or 3 I don't think
one should worry about deviation as long
as the photographer and the friend who view
the photo can tolerate it. If 1 or 1.5 or
2.6999 mm (in MF) works for you then use it.

  With the high resolution of MF stereo images
you can discern lots of depth even with low
OFD's (as your slides prove).

  Lower resolution formats like lenticulars
need more OFD or more physical separation between
objects to be able to discern depth. If you
try to take a smooth depth shot and view it on
a 3x4" lenticular photo you will be very disappointed
by the lack of depth. A row of flowers at 6',
a person at 10' and a far away scene (at infinity)
will give a much more satisfying lenticular
(I'm sure an 8x10 lent would work much better).

  35mm is somewhere in between I'd guess.
A sharp lensed 35mm camera on a tripod can
approach MF stereo resolution. A less sharp
handheld one won't.

Just my opinons - Greg E.