Re: [photo-3d] Are beamsplitters crappy?

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Mumford" <bryan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 10:22 PM
Subject: [photo-3d] Are beamsplitters crappy?


> sstiles pointed us to the web site http://www.3dquarium.com
>
> I looked at this web site and the sample images. I was struck by my
> dissatisfaction with the images taken with their beamsplitter. It
> leaves a very narrow image space for the stereo pair. I suppose this
> is unavoidable, but I had not seen it demonstrated before. Would
> others agree that beam-split pairs are unsatisfactory? I didn't think
> about it this way before, but I'm getting four times as much picture
> data in two full frame cha-chas than I would get in a single frame
> split image. Maybe a beamsplitter is not a worthwhile project after
> all.

Beamsplitters are capable of excellent quality stereo images.   One of the
advantages is the wide (not narrow) images that they can yield.  After all,
many of the large format 70mm theme park stereoscopic films (such as Disney,
Universal, etc.) were shot with beamsplitters.  Of course, two cameras are
necessary.  I am sure that James Cameron would not have used beamsplitters
to shoot most of T2-3D if he did not feel that they would yield the ultimate
in image quality.

Perhaps you are referring to image splitters, which certainly do result in
narrow images.  These should not be compared to beamsplitters.

JR

>
>
> Bryan Mumford
> Santa Barbara, California
> http://www.bmumford.com
>
>
>
>