Automatic Synchronization
Clo-Clo
cameras?
Synchronization of the order of 0,1 sec. or better?
The cameras can be cheap and simple (point'n'shoot) or more advanced (DSLR).
I will consider as I said the simplest solution.
Thanks.
Jeff R.
Simplest solution:
http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/stereo-rig.jpg
1) both thumbs under rail
2) right index finger on right shutter button
3) left index finger on left shutter button
4) sque-e-e-e-eze
Works for me.
http://www.mendosus.com/armidale/st-lookout-kia-ora-mnts.jpg
--
Jeff R.
Clo-Clo
"Jeff R." <conta...@this.ng> wrote
> Simplest solution:
> http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/stereo-rig.jpg
>
> 1) both thumbs under rail
> 2) right index finger on right shutter button
> 3) left index finger on left shutter button
> 4) sque-e-e-e-eze
>
> Works for me.
> http://www.mendosus.com/armidale/st-lookout-kia-ora-mnts.jpg
Thanks but I was thinking about something that could be remote
controlled, my arms are too short, furthermore I am not too sure
about the synchronization within a small fraction of a second.
Also what do you do with your stereo pictures?
Have you rigged together an equally ingenious stereoscope?
Finally why the latin about Constantin Huygens, Chris's Dad I believe?
Charles Manoras
" Clo-Clo" <w@z> wrote
A single remote should work for two or several cameras, I think.
Bob Larter
The simplest way would be to buy a bunch of wired remote triggers,
remove the switches & wire the cables to one or more relays. You'd then
trigger the relay[s] with a push-switch & a battery.
If you only needed to control two cameras, you wouldn't even need the
relays - a simple multipole push-switch would work fine.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff R.
> "Jeff R." <conta...@this.ng> wrote
>
>> Simplest solution:
>> http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/stereo-rig.jpg
>>
>> 1) both thumbs under rail
>> 2) right index finger on right shutter button
>> 3) left index finger on left shutter button
>> 4) sque-e-e-e-eze
>>
>> Works for me.
>
>> http://www.mendosus.com/armidale/st-lookout-kia-ora-mnts.jpg
>
> Thanks but I was thinking about something that could be remote
> controlled, my arms are too short, furthermore I am not too sure
> about the synchronization within a small fraction of a second.
Fair enough the "remote" aspect... but
I've found the synch to be good enough to capture balls in flight.
(basketballs, usually - not game to try it for cricket)
>
> Also what do you do with your stereo pictures?
(without wishing to sound sarcastic)
Look at 'em!
> Have you rigged together an equally ingenious stereoscope?
Yes, for parallel pairs (which my sample above is not), but I usually
distribute my pix via the web, cross-eyed free-viewing is far superior.
Easier for me, at my age, too.
I played with red/blue anaglyphs for a while (very successful) but
cross-eyed is superior because it requires no special hardware and it
retains the colour.
Yes - it requires training in the technique, but pfffttt to that.
>
> Finally why the latin about Constantin Huygens, Chris's Dad I believe?
Dunno about that - I just thought that "mendosus" is an extraordinarily
appropriate name for a website - any website, and any latin diatribe would
make a nice splash page.
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
> "Jeff R." <conta...@this.ng> wrote
>
>> Simplest solution:
>> http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/stereo-rig.jpg
>>
>> 1) both thumbs under rail
>> 2) right index finger on right shutter button
>> 3) left index finger on left shutter button
>> 4) sque-e-e-e-eze
>>
>> Works for me.
>
>> http://www.mendosus.com/armidale/st-lookout-kia-ora-mnts.jpg
>
> Thanks but I was thinking about something that could be remote
> controlled, my arms are too short, furthermore I am not too sure
> about the synchronization within a small fraction of a second.
Fair enough the "remote" aspect... but
I've found the synch to be good enough to capture balls in flight.
(basketballs, usually - not game to try it for cricket)
>
> Also what do you do with your stereo pictures?
(without wishing to sound sarcastic)
Look at 'em!
> Have you rigged together an equally ingenious stereoscope?
Yes, for parallel pairs (which my sample above is not), but I usually
distribute my pix via the web, cross-eyed free-viewing is far superior.
Easier for me, at my age, too.
I played with red/blue anaglyphs for a while (very successful) but
cross-eyed is superior because it requires no special hardware and it
retains the colour.
Yes - it requires training in the technique, but pfffttt to that.
>
> Finally why the latin about Constantin Huygens, Chris's Dad I believe?
Dunno about that - I just thought that "mendosus" is an extraordinarily
Jeff R.
> "Jeff R." <conta...@this.ng> wrote
>
>> Simplest solution:
>> http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/stereo-rig.jpg
>>
>> 1) both thumbs under rail
>> 2) right index finger on right shutter button
>> 3) left index finger on left shutter button
>> 4) sque-e-e-e-eze
>>
>> Works for me.
>
>> http://www.mendosus.com/armidale/st-lookout-kia-ora-mnts.jpg
>
> Thanks but I was thinking about something that could be remote
> controlled, my arms are too short, furthermore I am not too sure
> about the synchronization within a small fraction of a second.
Fair enough the "remote" aspect... but
I've found the synch to be good enough to capture balls in flight.
(basketballs, usually - not game to try it for cricket)
>
> Also what do you do with your stereo pictures?
(without wishing to sound sarcastic)
Look at 'em!
> Have you rigged together an equally ingenious stereoscope?
Yes, for parallel pairs (which my sample above is not), but I usually
distribute my pix via the web, cross-eyed free-viewing is far superior.
Easier for me, at my age, too.
I played with red/blue anaglyphs for a while (very successful) but
cross-eyed is superior because it requires no special hardware and it
retains the colour.
Yes - it requires training in the technique, but pfffttt to that.
>
> Finally why the latin about Constantin Huygens, Chris's Dad I believe?
Dunno about that - I just thought that "mendosus" is an extraordinarily
Jeff R.
!!!!
sorry 'bout multiple post.
browser hiccups!
JR
Bigguy
buttons onto a relay or opto to get them to fire simultaneously. Or just
press both buttons at once. Or fire both with a single IR remote.
P+S cameras generally (?) don't have wired remotes and rarely any (IR)
remote at all. You can 'modify' the fire button - wiring directly into
the contacts on the switch.
I have seen kite photograhy rigs where the fire button is pressed using
a solenoid/actuator.
With P+S cameras there is also the autofocus/shutter lag problem; they
may not both respond at the same time. Are there any P+S models where
you can use pre/manual focus?
Maybe a simple pair of P+S cameras with an IR remote would sync
reasonably well - It's worth a try...
Guy
Don Stauffer
Search on digital stereo photography. The stereo enthusiasts are
working on that problem, and have found certain cameras whose accessory
remote inputs allow very good sync.
Allodoxaphobia
> Clo-Clo wrote:
>> "Jeff R." <conta...@this.ng> wrote
>
>
> Yes, for parallel pairs (which my sample above is not), but I usually
> distribute my pix via the web, cross-eyed free-viewing is far superior.
> Easier for me, at my age, too.
The better technique is to view them wall-eyed, IMO. Maybe that's why
yours did not look 'dramatic' enough -- they were switched
left-to-right? Or, maybe it was the artifacts introduced by sharpening
and compression -- which would be different in each and which would be
more apparent in stereo viewing.
Hint: Viewing them in Firefox with it's image resizing as you resize
the window helps get the centers of the pictures closer to a reasonable
range that can be accommodated by your IPD.
I first learned how to do unaided stereo viewing when I worked one
Summer as a go-fer for a surveyor in the 'bad lands' of western
Colorado's oil shale country (circa 1966). He would lay out two
USGS aerial photographs on the hood of the truck and go wall-eyed to see
the terrain features. It's Way Less head-achy for me than cross-eyed.
Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
* Killfiling google & XXXXbanter.com: jonz.net/ng.htm
Jürgen Exner
>Any simple way to synchronize 2 or more (preferably identical) digital
>cameras?
>Synchronization of the order of 0,1 sec. or better?
>
Don't standard IR-remote controls work?
If that's really a problem then maybe use a wired remote control and
build your own Y-connector.
jue
Jürgen Exner
>" Clo-Clo" <w@z> wrote:
>>Any simple way to synchronize 2 or more (preferably identical) digital
>>cameras?
>>Synchronization of the order of 0,1 sec. or better?
>>
>>I will consider as I said the simplest solution.
>
>Don't standard IR-remote controls work?
To be more precise: a _single_ IR-remote should be able to trigger
_both_ cameras.
bugbear
Anyone know how the cameras for "bullet time" in the matrix
were triggered?
Any system that can do precise "lagged sync" should
also do "full sync"
BugBear
Jeff R.
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:08:04 +1000, Jeff R. wrote:
>> Clo-Clo wrote:
>>> "Jeff R." <conta...@this.ng> wrote
>>
>>> Have you rigged together an equally ingenious stereoscope?
>>
>> Yes, for parallel pairs (which my sample above is not), but I usually
>> distribute my pix via the web, cross-eyed free-viewing is far
>> superior. Easier for me, at my age, too.
>
> The better technique is to view them wall-eyed, IMO. Maybe that's why
> yours did not look 'dramatic' enough -- they were switched
> left-to-right?
Sighhhh...
By "wall-eyed" I presume you mean parallel. This was the way I learnt to
view stereo pix, and the only way I viewed them for decades. It was the
decreasing accommodation of my eyes that led to me to adopting cross-eyed
instead. Then I discovered the vast superiority of the method - largely
because the images can be huge.
I now reserve parallel (or "wall-eyed" if you like) for viewing
transparencies through a viewer.
>... Or, maybe it was the artifacts introduced by
> sharpening and compression -- which would be different in each and
> which would be more apparent in stereo viewing.
...and did you notice how these artifacts cancel out when the two images
combine?
The stereo effect in my sample is quite dramatic. I Can count at least
seven distinct planes of interest. If you cannot see them, or they seem
"backwards" then....
> Hint: Viewing them in Firefox with it's image resizing as you resize
> the window helps get the centers of the pictures closer to a
> reasonable range that can be accommodated by your IPD.
Sigghhh again. It has 'nowt to do with IPD when viewing cross-eyed. If
viewing parallel then the images must be tiny - one way or another.
> I first learned how to do unaided stereo viewing when I worked one
> Summer as a go-fer for a surveyor in the 'bad lands' of western
> Colorado's oil shale country (circa 1966). He would lay out two
> USGS aerial photographs on the hood of the truck and go wall-eyed to
> see the terrain features. It's Way Less head-achy for me than
> cross-eyed.
Either he stood back a long way or he was viewing them cross-eyed. Your
hesitation in identifying my example as cross-eyed seems to confirm that
suggestion.
> Jonesy
--
Jeff R.