Re: [photo-3d] LEEP camera / architectural 3d

["Don Lopp" <dlopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Looking back at the note from Boris it appears to me that he would be more
than satisfied  with using a MF camera with a 45-50mm lens on a shift bar
and he would great interior stereo far superior to anything he could get
with a LEEP,preferably  a SLR MF camera..I am at a loss to understand the
need for swings and tilts when taking interior stereo pictures as when you
aim the sterio camera up the picture looks like you are looking up,so in my
opinion , why correct it-what is wrong with looking upward-so the lines are
not paralel why correct them in stereo??I like to shoot waterfalls and
usually look upward but I have never heard any one  complain about the
looking up appearance being a bad thing- most exclaim how realistic the
pictures appear-I think a rental of a Pentax 6x7  with a 45mm lens will give
him what he wants with out all of the swing,tilt problems inheirant with
their built in complex problems as compared with the use of regular MF
cameras.     DON            a
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Reynolds" <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] LEEP camera / architectural 3d


> Don Lopp wrote:
> > I do-not see much advantage in going to all the exspence of getting
> > a camera with all the features such as swings ,tilts and raising
> > front to shoot a stereo picture as I am completely satisfied with
> > the results one gets using a decent MF stereo camera with a decent
> > ortho viewer..I can only guess as to how much more time it would
> > take-if one were to take stereo pictures with a swinging etc type of
> > camera which would be even more akward with a 4x5 camera considering
> > the viewing problems which are almos insurmountable mirrors ) etc.I
> > lean towards " keep it simple " Incidentally Greg Erker has sent
> > some MF stereos using a 17mm lens which was soething like a LEEP
> > stereo except that the 17 mm was sharper, by far.when seen in a
> > viewer with 45mm optics
>
> I did not mean to imply that everyone should run out and buy a 4x5
> camera to shoot stereo.  For the situation that Boris was asking about
> (documenting architectural interiors) I do think that a view camera is
> the best option.  Obviously you can shoot interiors and architecture
> without a view camera, but you will be limited in what you can do.
>
> Large format photography does not have to be expensive.  For a short
> term project like Boris' (and to see if LF is for you), renting a
> camera is the way to go.  Even the purchase of a new camera isn't that
> bad.  The metal hybrid 4x5 camera I'm currently considering is less
> expensive than a RBT, and the introductory camera from Toyo (45CX) is
> only about $600, $900 in a starter package that includes a lens and
> accessories.
>
> Viewing stereo pairs shot on a view camera doesn't have to be a
> problem either.  The easiest method would be to use a 6x6 roll film
> back, giving you easily viewed pairs shot with movements.  I have used
> a couple of different mirror viewers with 4x5 pairs and they work
> well.
>
> I have seen some of Greg Erker's MF fisheye stereo pairs and they are
> very nice.
>
> --
> Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
> reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
> http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
> NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"
>
>
>
>