Kip Williams wrote:
>Greg Goss wrote:
>
>> It's a side effect of the prisms used for the folded optics, but
>> binoculars always end up with the "intake lenses" much farther apart
>> than the eyepieces. This will exaggerate the 3D effect, and your
>> brain will learn to read this exaggeration fast enough.
>
>True for big binoculars, but I have a small pair which, though it uses
>prisms, still looks like two straight tubes mounted side-by-side.
>
>When I started taking stereo pairs, I was really exaggerating the
>distance between the eyes, and many of my attempts simply crashed.
>(Another interesting failure came when I had to wait too long between
>left and right views — because of cars or something — and when I mounted
>them, the clouds had shifted in such a way that THE SKY WAS FALLING!
>AAAAAHHH!)
There was a recent Astronomy Picture of the Day:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120508.html
actually, a movie, the guy had set up tracks, teeter-totters, etc., to
move the camera during a time lapse. The 3-D effect it gives the
rocks is distracting even from the spectacle of stars wheeling across
the landscape.
>> But yeah, if you're supposed to be a quarter mile away to see enough
>> of it, the 3D effect would in reality be trivial. It's still pretty
>> cool to look at the bogus version.
Ah, "It looks like a model" vs "Ooo, I could almost touch it!"
I suppose one does get used to it. I was mulling over an idea that
something to push 3D-TV over from fad to addiction might be giving the
viewer a godlike feeling looking over landscapes, cityscapes, and
sporting events, and a dissatisfaction that the real world is flat.
>I got my basic knowledge of the technical end of it from a 1930s article
>in Popular Science (I think it was PS, not PM). The article also taught
>me how to freeview, and to make little pictorial 3D pairs from letters
>and symbols using a typewriter and the "half-space" option (holding the
>spacebar down before striking a character).
I read a special effects article during the attempted 3-D revival of
the '80s. I later dot-matrix printed output from a wire-frame program
I was making for freeviewing, but despite an, "OK, neat," didn't go
any further with it.
>> Suddenly everything looked like a viewmaster or those 3D postcards.
>> Amazing. I'd always thought that viewmasters and the postcards were
>> exaggerating.
>
>And now when I look at View-Masters, the 3D is nowhere near as strong as
>it used to look to me. Stereoscope slides, taken with much larger
>cameras, give me a better effect.
We had very few Viewmaster reels as kids [1], one image that was hard
to decipher I blame on the small size of the image; it was a statue of
Zeus with winged Nike in his hand. It was just two overlapping
pictures of reflective gold, bronze, and copper, until one day I
twiddled my eyes and it fell into place, columns marching down the
aisle, Nike almost flying away.
[1] It seems like a long time before we had more than a dozen albums
and singles for our record player, too [2]. Perhaps my father, as a
barber adept with the resharpenable straight razor was leery of that
"sell the razor, then make money selling the blades" strategy. Or, it
could be that as a barber, he didn't have money for much more than we
had. Might be why I never bought a film camera or other such objects.
[2] We kids could get four times the enjoyment out of our records,
though. We could play them at 45 RPM, 33 1/3, 78, or 18, sometimes
multiple changes in the same song!
--
-Jack