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.
<-- Date Index --> <-- Thread Index --> [Author Index]

Re: [tech-3d] David's "Complete Formula" for Stereo Base


  • From: "David Lee" <koganlee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [tech-3d] David's "Complete Formula" for Stereo Base
  • Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:41:09 -0800


> Hi David,
>
> I just finished pouring over your terrific article at:
>
> http://www.berezin.com/3d/Tech/lens_separation_in_stereo_photog.htm

Thanks for taking the time to examine it so thoroughly.


>but what surprises me the most is how LEAN your formula is -
> much easier to look at and work with!

This was the whole point of my article. I know that I do not use a
calculator in the field, yet I use these principles. So I tried to analyze
what I do intuitively and write it down in a systematic fashion so that
others could benefit from it.


And your explanation of the factors
> is terrific, not to mention the tips you add near the bottom, like tossing
> a rock into the air and waiting for it to hit the ground - as a visual aid
> for syncing shutters when two people are firing them at several feet
apart!
>  Excellent!

Thank you, again, it is meant to be as practical as I could make it.

> Anyway, have a look at how closely the "Complete Formula" hugs the
"General
> Solution" at a deviation of 100% MAOFD, when a depth factor of 1/30 is
> chosen and note, too, how your formula perfectly equates to using the 1/15
> rule once the Near:Far ratio falls to 1:2 (again, these calculations were
> done with matching 65mm viewer and camera lenses):

I suspected that it would be pretty close, since the math is all basically
the same formula expressed in different ways.


> Still, I have studied the General Solution at length and know it to fit
the
> geometry perfectly, so I'm compelled to declare it perfectly accurate
where
> your equation is nearly perfect - so close though, that I would surely use
> it if simplifying the math was imperative for getting it programmed into a
> spreadsheet or a calculator.  You can just look at it and readily see how
> the factors impact each other. It's so easily "digested"!

I would be curious to know how many (if any) use calculators or formulas in
the field (at least more than one or two times).  I only used the math a
couple times to get a feel for what it would be.

David Lee


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/3/_/520353/_/974785551/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->