I agree. And lenses just get better and better. Even the Chinese made lenses (Samyang) are suppose to be very good. On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan Derickson" < > alland435@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:18 PM > Subject: [rollei_list] OT: Stereo Photography > > > > I've thought of trying some stereo photographs with one of my TLRs. >> Rollei >> even had an accessory sliding mount for just such a purpose. I think it >> slid the camera about two and a half inches for the second shot-similiar >> to >> the distance between human eyes. You then produce contact prints and >> obtain >> or construct one of those old-time handheld viewers. I read somewhere that >> this will produce a stereo effect when the subjects are relatively close. >> How would you calculate the necessary lateral movement when the subjects >> are >> far away, say like formations in the Grand Canyon taken from the rim? >> >> I don't think anyone answered this. The distance between the lenses > should always approximate the inter-ocular distance, approximately 65mm. > However, at great distances, there is virtually no stereo effect. However, > there is nothing wrong with using any arbitrary spacing for an exagerated or > enhanced stereo effect. This done commonly in aerial photography where two > photographs taken a few seconds apart as the aircraft is moving can be fused > into a stereo image. There are viewers made for examining aerial photos > consisting of magnifying eyepieces with two mirrors on each side to get the > right spacing. Sometimes one finds old aerial survey photos which have > inadvertent stereo pairs. I remember looking at some years ago at the UCLA > geography department which had the archives of two of the old time aerial > survey companies operating in the Los Angeles area (Spence was one and I am > drawing a blank on the other). Among the pictures were some of the Twentieth > Century-Fox movie lot. I could easily see people in the photos when looked > at in stereo. When looking at single images I could tell they were people > after seeing the stereo images but would never have known otherwise. > Ideally, for stereo the lenses should also face inward slighly just as > one's eyes do but I don't know of any stereo cameras which actually do this. > The problem with the slider is that one can take only still life with it. > The closest two Rollei camras can be placed results in about a four inch > spacing between lenses. This would be fine for photographing distant objects > where one wanted enhanced stereo. I have seen rigs for using two 35mm > cameras oriented vertically, cameras like the Leica thread mount models can > be close enough for proper spacing when mounted this way. > One of my continuing regrets was not buying a Heidoscope (or maybe it > was a Rolleidoscope) I saw at a camera swap meet many years ago. I don't > think they wanted much for it then and I could have gotten it. I have rarely > seen others and always for high prices. > > > -- > Richard Knoppow > Los Angeles, CA, USA > dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > --- > Rollei List > > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the > subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org > > - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in > the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org > > - Online, searchable archives are available at > //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list > > -- Peter K Ó¿Õ¬