Thanks brainiac.
I learn something new everyday. I appreciate that.
That must be why those funny looking stereo cameras have the 2 lenses close together. I thought they were made to take closer subject matter. I'm going to challenge myself to shoot subjects 20+ feet away with only a 2.5 inch shift and compare it to my normal 12 inch shift for the same distance. Everbody's eyes are different which may explain why some of my stuff works well for others and others say it works but their eyes hurt a little looking at them. If I can step it down to 2.5 inches for everything, then maybe it will be easier and work for more people.
John Richter wrote:
Thanks brainiac.
I learn something new everyday. I appreciate that.
That must be why those funny looking stereo cameras have the 2 lenses close together. I thought they were made to take closer subject matter. I'm going to challenge myself to shoot subjects 20+ feet away with only a 2.5 inch shift and compare it to my normal 12 inch shift for the same distance. Everbody's eyes are different which may explain why some of my stuff works well for others and others say it works but their eyes hurt a little looking at them. If I can step it down to 2.5 inches for everything, then maybe it will be easier and work for more people....Show more →
2.5 inches will look the most natural. That's about how far apart our eyes are, and we don't really know any different. The only time most of us have ever seen stronger 3D is when looking through large binoculars, which are made with the lens axes further apart in order to gain the benefit of exaggerated 3D for binocular situations. Of course, the closer something is to our eyes, the greater the parallax angle is, and therefore the stronger the 3D effect, but that means that when we see exaggerated 3D in stereographs it doesn't add up with the expected subject distance, and we smell a rat.
OntheRez wrote:
I'm really bummed. Had lens implants a few years ago and opted for the mono-vision approach: one for near sight the other at regular vision. It's generally pretty useful like no glasses for reading and such but makes this sort of 3D impossible. Doesn't matter what I do with my eyes, nothing ever goes 3D
Wow - sorry to hear that. I didn't know specialised implants was an option. I learn something new every day too...
I agree. That is why I asked. I figured that the image was taken with more than needed for proper effect. If you want to exaggerate the effect with very distant objects, its a 30 to 1 shift ratio.
I tried the 2.5 inch shift yesterday. Keep in mind I'm using a single camera (Trip/handheld) to get the affect.
I went from right eye to left eye and it was kinda tough to do. The "cha-cha" method of keeping the camera on the same eye and shifting your weight from one side to the next is much easier and the whole thing appears to be forgiving enough to where it really doesn't matter. Well, to me at least. I'm going to keep it simple using the cha-cha method.
