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

[Mike Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bryan Mumford wrote:
> 
> Would
> others agree that beam-split pairs are unsatisfactory? 

Depends upon what one is using them for.  While I don't agree that
they are crappy, I do agree that they have significant restrictions
in their use, or at least my Pentax one does.

> 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.

In terms of amount of film you get exposed, quite true. But a
"beamsplitter" (image splitter) can take the two images at 
the same time (and with perhaps a 1/4000 sec shutter if light is
bright enough) -- something a cha-cha has no hope of achieving.
"Beamsplitter" also probably would provide better rotational
alignment between the two images (one thing I certainly never
seemed to be able to do too well when cha-cha'ing with my wife's
digital camera).  :-)

I'd call it a step up from cha-cha's, but most any stereo camera would
be a step up from the beamsplitter (except only for some special niche
circumstances).


Mike K.


P.S. - When I was married mumble years ago, I had a friend use my Pentax
       stereo adapter, and his photos are loved by us more than the ones done
       by the professional (and not just because it was 3D, the image content
       was important too :-).

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