Mustang Air to Air: The Sequel
/forum/topic/600984/3977

1       2       3              3977      
3978
       3979              4532       4533       end

FlyingPhotog
Registered: May 09, 2008
Total Posts: 4775
Country: United States

Just a stupid shot from the ground, but it's kinda fun to see what 1.2 of ND can do...
1/100 @ f/3.5 (and no dust spots)



MMcGrath
Registered: Apr 15, 2006
Total Posts: 2649
Country: United Kingdom

Jay,

can you post up some images of the ND filters you use with your Canon big glass & explain how they work?



FlyingPhotog
Registered: May 09, 2008
Total Posts: 4775
Country: United States

Not much to them really. You simply snag one of these:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/763737-REG/Canon_4773B001_52mm_Drop_in_Gelatin_Filter.html

...and then buy a thin-profille 52mm ND of your choice in the strength you want.

You can sandwich ND Gel in the holder that comes with the lens.

There is also a drop-in polarizer which has a knurled wheel protruding just above the drop-in unit so you can rotate it.



Go4Long
Registered: Sep 04, 2005
Total Posts: 2013
Country: Canada

I love the drop ins. I've been trying to justify the polarizer ever since I bought my first big lens, but just haven't managed to.

My real problem with the ND's is losing them. I can't even count the number of ND filters I've lost over the years. I'm bad for swapping them, then just leaving the other one on the ledge, or on a seat, or wherever and then forgetting where I put it.

I had a really nice schneider one that is MIA since earlier this year



MMcGrath
Registered: Apr 15, 2006
Total Posts: 2649
Country: United Kingdom

Jay,

Many thanks. Will look into that.



stevezzzz
Registered: Aug 01, 2010
Total Posts: 4084
Country: United States

Glenn Watson wrote:
it is possible to use the same picture and crop slightly different a 2nd frame? That question alone may give away my level of understanding of the process.

Glenn


The key is that everything in the frame has to be shot from two different points of view, but (and here's the kicker) nothing in the frame can be moving relative to the camera between the two frames. I do it from the airplane by capturing a burst as I fly by, and picking the two frames that give the best stereo image; the goal is to aiming the camera at right angles to the direction of motion (i.e., directly off the wing), or as nearly as possible.

I have only once been able to craft a viable stereo pair when shooting air-to-air (see below). I had to move the glider horizontally in one of the frames to make it 'read' as being a normal sized glider in front of the ridge instead of a gigantic glider behind the ridge; the trick was only possible because the glider appeared in both frames against a patch of clear blue sky. You couldn't do it if a detailed background were behind the aircraft, because the background is moving at a different rate than the aircraft relative to the photo platform.

If you're standing on the ground and shooting an aircraft moving against a detailed backdrop, you can sometimes achieve a decent stereo effect on the aircraft only, but nothing else in the frame will appear to be three-dimensional because the backdrop is identical in both frames of the stereo pair since both were shot from the same point of view.

Clear as mud?



Razor17
Registered: Oct 08, 2012
Total Posts: 465
Country: United States

Glenn Watson wrote:
Kinda liking this one...




Kinda, there is a lot to like there...



stevezzzz
Registered: Aug 01, 2010
Total Posts: 4084
Country: United States

Glenn Watson wrote:
it is possible to use the same picture and crop slightly different a 2nd frame? That question alone may give away my level of understanding of the process.

Glenn


That won't work, Glenn. Your brain will fuse the two images just fine, but there will be no three-dimensional illusion.



stevezzzz
Registered: Aug 01, 2010
Total Posts: 4084
Country: United States

Jan-Arie wrote:
Jim's airfield neighbour Adam Shake and Bake Baker


Must be getting loopy: I was trying to find the second person in that cockpit, the one named Bake Baker.



Zane Adams
Registered: Oct 26, 2011
Total Posts: 371
Country: United States

Love that T-bird shot Jan... It has an ethereal quality.



Go4Long
Registered: Sep 04, 2005
Total Posts: 2013
Country: Canada



stevez wrote:
Glenn Watson wrote:
it is possible to use the same picture and crop slightly different a 2nd frame? That question alone may give away my level of understanding of the process.

Glenn


That won't work, Glenn. Your brain will fuse the two images just fine, but there will be no three-dimensional illusion.


If I understand the theory correctly the only way to do it with a moving subject would be to have two cameras side by side set the same taking pictures at the same time...Right?



stevezzzz
Registered: Aug 01, 2010
Total Posts: 4084
Country: United States

From 2000 feet over the Gulf coast of Florida, the first of a series of wetlands studies.



ELinder
Registered: Feb 14, 2010
Total Posts: 1070
Country: United States

Go4Long wrote:


stevez wrote:
Glenn Watson wrote:
it is possible to use the same picture and crop slightly different a 2nd frame? That question alone may give away my level of understanding of the process.

Glenn


That won't work, Glenn. Your brain will fuse the two images just fine, but there will be no three-dimensional illusion.


If I understand the theory correctly the only way to do it with a moving subject would be to have two cameras side by side set the same taking pictures at the same time...Right?


That's the ideal way of doing it, yes. The cameras are set up just like your two eyes.

Steve's got practical experience doing this, but I'm still wondering if it's possible with a fast frame rate burst. The key would be you would have to be tracking the subject with the camera by rotating the angle of the camera. The different position and slightly different angle would create a slightly different perspective of the subject akin to the difference between your left and right eyes. In post, you'd overlay and align the subject. The background would shift, but i think that'd be OK because at large distances the difference your left and right see is also greater.

Steve, that doesn't work in your experience, or does it result in a sort of faux-3D effect?

Erich



ELinder
Registered: Feb 14, 2010
Total Posts: 1070
Country: United States

Rob Holland coming and going.

Erich



stevezzzz
Registered: Aug 01, 2010
Total Posts: 4084
Country: United States

ELinder wrote:
Go4Long wrote:


stevez wrote:
Glenn Watson wrote:
it is possible to use the same picture and crop slightly different a 2nd frame? That question alone may give away my level of understanding of the process.

Glenn


That won't work, Glenn. Your brain will fuse the two images just fine, but there will be no three-dimensional illusion.


If I understand the theory correctly the only way to do it with a moving subject would be to have two cameras side by side set the same taking pictures at the same time...Right?


That's the ideal way of doing it, yes. The cameras are set up just like your two eyes.

Steve's got practical experience doing this, but I'm still wondering if it's possible with a fast frame rate burst. The key would be you would have to be tracking the subject with the camera by rotating the angle of the camera. The different position and slightly different angle would create a slightly different perspective of the subject akin to the difference between your left and right eyes. In post, you'd overlay and align the subject. The background would shift, but i think that'd be OK because at large distances the difference your left and right see is also greater.

Steve, that doesn't work in your experience, or does it result in a sort of faux-3D effect?

Erich


No, that's backwards: in normal stereo vision, at large distances the difference your left and right eyes see is much less. So yes, it doesn't work. In an air-to-air scenario, by the time the subject aircraft has moved relative the the photo platform enough to form a decent stereo image, it's moved over the background a much greater distance. Plus, the background may be moving in the wrong direction relative to the subject.

Theoretically, if you could arrange things so that the subject aircraft is moving aft relative to the camera position just a bit faster than the ground is sliding by (also in the aft direction, obviously), you could make it work. But only if the subject aircraft is at the same time absolutely stable in its flight attitude (roll, yaw, pitch).



stevezzzz
Registered: Aug 01, 2010
Total Posts: 4084
Country: United States

I'll leave you with one more aerial abstract tonight. Home on the airlines tomorrow.



Glenn Watson
Registered: Nov 13, 2007
Total Posts: 3835
Country: United States

Not my photo obviously, but a cool look i thought from a target..



Glenn



Glenn Watson
Registered: Nov 13, 2007
Total Posts: 3835
Country: United States

Can barely spy the shooter in the rear seat...



Glenn



Glenn Watson
Registered: Nov 13, 2007
Total Posts: 3835
Country: United States

Keith Davis + Wayne Roberts..



Glenn



Glenn Watson
Registered: Nov 13, 2007
Total Posts: 3835
Country: United States

My buddy Skip and Andrew circling waiting for Berts arrival...



1       2       3              3977      
3978
       3979              4532       4533       end