Re: [photo-3d] full format with image splitter?

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Galazin" <rexlion22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "P3D mail list" <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 8:28 PM
Subject: [photo-3d] full format with image splitter?


> Hi gang,
>
> Are there any 35mm cameras built with a wider format than 36x24....say,
> about 50x24 or even a72x24?  If such a camera (perhaps built with panorama
> shooting in mind) had a splitter attached to the front of the lens, one
> could obtain pairs of realist format 24x24 or perhaps even full format
36x24
> shots, through a single lens.

Interesting concept.  However, good quality panoramic cameras are often more
expensive than an RBT, and would produce a left-right differential in terms
of image shape due to the geometric distortion of the short focal length
lenses they are usually equipped with.   Some of the travelling shutter type
(with-or-without moving lens) panoramics have less distortion, but would
present problems with moving subjects due to the time difference as the
shutter travels across the scene.

> Another possibility: What would happen if one attached a splitter to a
> medium format camera, then trimmed the top and bottom of each frame to
> create the above format stereo pairs?

It works, I have tried it.  But not without trade-offs.  You have half the
angle for any particular focal length lens, which means that you want a
shorter focal length.  But, medium format lenses tend to be a longer focal
length for corresponding field coverage (a normal lens on a stereo camera
would be 35mm or 40mm focal length; a normal lens on a medium format would
be around 100mm).  A 50mm lens on a medium format is considered to be a
rather short focal length, a super wide angle, and will show some left-right
edge barrel distortion, as well as being very expensive.

An RBT would still produce better results, and at less cost than a medium
format with a similar complement of lenses.  I think you would even prefer
the results you would get with a regular stereo camera, such as a Realist.

If, after this, you still want to use an image splitter, be sure it has high
quality coated front surface mirrors.

JR

>  I've just been curious about these possibilities.  Seems like a more
> efficient, (mechanically) more trouble free, and possibly less expensive
way
> to go than an RBT camera.  What do you think?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike Galazin
>
>
> Shop online without a credit card
> http://www.rocketcash.com
> RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary
>
>
>
>