Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D
|
|
Notice |
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
|
|
[photo-3d] Re: Alternative Quiz (#3)
- From: Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [photo-3d] Re: Alternative Quiz (#3)
- Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:49:30 -0800 (PST)
Not many taffy lovers I guess!
If the goal is simply to get a pair of images that can be viewed
stereoscopically, there is no problem - you just watch for a "dolly" or
"tracking" shot (as Dave Williams suggested), wherein the camera moves
sideways while shooting on a track perpendicular to the camera axis. But
the nubbin of this quiz is the idea of creating an "automatic" stereo
window.
Actually you can express the problem in terms of a regular still-camera
sequential shot. Simply moving the camera sideways will produce two
images for a stereo pair, but the uncropped shots that come out of the
camera will have a stereo window set at infinity. Can the camera be moved
in such a way that the two images are already framed for a "proper"
foreground window, without further trimming?
George got the idea and said:
> You have to shift the camera (I think there is a proper
> term in cinematography for this kind of camera movement,
> but I do not know it) and at the same time converge the
> camera to where you want your stereo window to be, i.e.
> at your nearest object (or a little bit closer).
This would be a dolly shot *combined* with a pan, where the camera is
rotated about a vertical axis, keeping the line of sight "toed-in" on a
point nearer than the nearest object. Would this successfully put the 3-D
scene behind the screen? How exactly? And if so, are there still other
problems? (George's answer is insufficiently verbose and ruminative to
take the taffy, but it's correct in its stingy way. :-P)
Mark Dottle asked why move the SLR that you are shooting the TV screen
with. Indeed, that is necessary only if you want the television and the
room to be in stereo as well. NOT doing that and letting just the image
on the TV be 3-D happens to be an idea I've entertained, while imagining a
series of set-up shots where the only 3-D objects in the scene are the
ones you DON'T expect to be stereoscopic. A kind of stereo joke.
Har-har.
Just something to chew on.
Bruce
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|