Setup for extreme-stereo images
I've been toying with the idea of taking some extreme-stereo landscape pictures this spring, when the light returns. By "extreme" I mean camera separation from 20 cm to 2 m. Why? Because it sounds fun. I'd get stereoscopic vision of landscape elements that my eyes can't see as 3D because they're too far away. I'm hoping for kind of a "miniature" effect analogous to what you'd get with tilt-shift, but using 3D instead of focus.
I'd be using two analog SLRs, probably on separate tripods, with cable releases. I can't use just one camera and move it, because grass and waves will move and ruin the stereoscopic effect, and if the images work out I might want to take the gear out on the fjord in a small boat.
My available equipment is a Nikon FE2 with a 50mm and a 28-84mm zoom, and a Practica Super TL with a choice of 50mm and 28mm lens. I'd probably start with BW negative film, but I might try slide afterwards. Or perhaps buy two Holgas and shoot nice big slides? 3D viewer and mounts are available from Lomography society for both 135 and 120, so it should be easy to setup.
So, questions. Any pitfalls I should be aware of? Is 28mm too wide? 50mm too narrow? Shutter timing too unreliable? Aiming too difficult?
(I also have an F70 with a 50mm and a 28-200 zoom, but I'd rather use the old cameras and lenses that are cheaply replaced if I stumble and drop them, not to mention easier to carry on a hike.)
Last edited by Arctic amateur; 02-06-2013 at 10:15 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Will this be an autostereogram ("Magic Eye" type picture) or one that is viewed with a stereopticon?
I have made different types of stereograms on the computer. Anaglyph. Random Dot. Stereopticon. Etc...
Interocular distance needs to be correct in relation to the size of the image and the viewing distance.
It needs to be large enough to create the stereo effect. Usually that means the average distance between a human's eyes.
It also needs to be smaller than the apparent width of the picture, given the viewing distance.
If it will be viewed on a stereopticon, it might be easier. If it will be some type of autostereogram, it might not work. The viewer might not be able to focus on it. He might have to move closer or farther away. It might give him a headache viewing it. He might not be able to see it at all.
Also, try to make both cameras converge on the same spot even if they don't see the exact same field of view. In real life, your brain uses the images from both eyes to, sort of, triangulate what it sees. You have to simulate that virtual triangle for the 3-D effect to work.
It'd be the kind where you either use a viewer to see one image with each eye, or look cross-eyed at two side-by-side images.
I was intending to greatly exaggerate the inter-camera distance to get an exaggerated effect. Like if a mountain 10 km away was a strange-looking hill 10 meters away.
No technical info, but I watched a fellow do this with two Hassys about 10 meters apart. He had a partner at the other camera and he threw a rock in the air between the two cameras. When it hit the ground, both cameras were fired. Good luck!
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can be a good day of exercise.
I've done this in a canoe with a Verascope on a lake. Used the double exposure shutter cock, covered one lens with my palm then drifted a little and exposed the other lens. Used pine trees in the distance to overlap the frame. It came out really cool like a scale model. the lake was really flat so that worked ok. I also did this at Mt St Helens. Having a subject you can easily frame the same scene simplifies things. Good luck. It creates a neat effect.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I seem to remember somewhere a ratio of 1 to 50. Avoid shooting any object much closer than 50 times the distance between the cameras.
One of the most extreme stereo images I saw was a stereo image of stars taken from the earth in different positions in its orbit.
Originally Posted by Arctic amateur
This is completely synthetic.
Rendered by computer.
The image an files are public domain.
I only rendered it into a 3-D stereogram.
The two (virtual) cameras are the equivalent of a couple of feet apart, focused on the base of the tree.
The problem is that it is hard to view because the interocular distance is too far apart as relative to the scene. If the cameras were closer together or if they were focused on a point farther in the distance, it would be easier.
As it is, now, it is pretty hard to view unless you are about arm's length away from it. Even then, your eyes tire quickly and you can't hold it in focus for very long. You'll end up with a headache.
I learned this mostly by experimentation and reading articles on the internet. I have an advantage in this case because, being completely CGI, I can quickly redo the image if it isn't right.
Thus, might I suggest, if doing it with film that you try a few different camera setups just in case. Better to burn a little extra film than to have to make two or three trips.
this sounds cool. wish I could see the stereoscopic results for real. maybe you could post a gif though.
I was thinking something like that, except I'd swap the two images if I was doing side-by-side. With your setup I have to point my left eye to the left and my right eye to the right, which I've never been able to do except when the images are small enough that I can aim my eyes normally at a point near infinity. I find it much easier to cross my eyes at a point just in front of my eyes. It's tiring to hold that kind of gaze, but much easier for me to find and "lock" than to look "behind" the pictures.
Originally Posted by Worker 11811