[photo-3d] 3-D special "Q"

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

I had a chance look at the special 3d issue of Q magazine, which is a
british music magazine a friend of mine gets.  Very interesting indeed.

The 3-d is "REAL" though I will qualify that: the pictures appear taken
with one of those Vivitar(?) 3d anaglyph lenses on a standard SLR.  (What
I've learned about these, I have learned only from this list).

The evidence?  All the shots were shot wide open, with very shallow depth
of field.  Depth effect was truly stereoscopic, though minimal, as if shot
with very little stereobase.  Telephoto shots showed the most depth (though
"cardboardy"), and wide angle shots the least depth.  (were these lenses
zooms?)

But two items are clinchers:

1. In many of the shots there are trees in the distance, out of focus.
Light passing through the foliage in places created in essence a point
source.  Generally, an out of focus point source renders as an image of the
aperture on the film.  In all of these pictures, that aperture appeared as
a circle with a blue half and a red half - i.e. an image of the blue/red
filtering used within the lens.

2. In one of the shots, the photographer "forgot" that he should shoot
landscape format only. It shows a girl juggling, and all of the anaglyph
disparity is vertical!  This shot has blurry foliage in the background as
well, and you can see the image of the aperture, with blue and red halves,
one atop the other.

This was a very interesting discovery for me.  Having only heard about such
a lens on the P3D list, I was naturally curious and skeptical about it, but
never had seen any pictures taken with such a lens.

These pictures all have true color anaglyph 3-d.  Amazingly enough the
colors in the pictures appear undistorted upon first inspection - full
color through red and blue filters - I thought this was not possible?
Furthermore, because all the depth information is in the blurry parts, all
the images work very well flat.  The red/blue fringing characteristic of
anaglyphs is confined to the parts of the image that you would not look at
much anyway.

But this begs the question: why shoot 3-d with such a lens in the first
place?  The 3d is not very functional.  Although the depth is there, it is
minimal, and it is available only "blurry," thus unable really to increase
"readability" of the image.  Obviously this is a great system for quickly
producing 3d that functions mainly as a marketing gimmick.  But I would
also say this is a better form of 3d than the cheapo conversions one sees
too often used as a marketing ploy.  (See my related post on elmer's glue).

I think the lens is called a "Q-dos" is that right?  That would be a
coincidence!

Boris


- Not content with ignorance of the past,
- humanity seeks the counsel of oracles.
-
-                                     J.P.V.D.Balsdon, _Romans & Aliens_

Boris Starosta, manager               boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Dynamic Symmetry, LLC                 http://www.starosta.com
usa - 804 979 3930                    http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase