FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Got 3D? Show | Show

Page  <1234>
Author
Bob J View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 23 December 2005
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London
Status: Offline
Posts: 19311
Post Options Post Options   Quote Bob J Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 April 2011 at 17:36
I did some work once on cable releases, inserting audio jack-plugs so that I could use extensions in the line - it should be possible to link two cameras to one remote with the appropriate two-into-one adapters... Easier still of course to trigger two cameras with the same IR remote...

RBJ ~ Moderation on Dyxum - Please help your fellow members and make as many comments on photos as you can, you'll be surprised how much your own work improves
 



Back to Top
PeteMag View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 July 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 842
Post Options Post Options   Quote PeteMag Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 April 2011 at 18:16
Originally posted by Bob J Bob J wrote:

I did some work once on cable releases, inserting audio jack-plugs so that I could use extensions in the line - it should be possible to link two cameras to one remote with the appropriate two-into-one adapters... Easier still of course to trigger two cameras with the same IR remote...



I have (or will have when ebay delivers) three wired remotes, so it should be easier for the purposes, to forget an adaptor and hardwire two cables together...... I think.

I have tried the IR remote, it has advantages of course - but is more fiddly than holding a cord and needs you to hold it in front of the camera (or thereabouts). I also tried it with studio lights triggered by radio via one camera. The camera with the radio trigger worked fine as usual, but the second camera did not fire at precisely the same time. I'd like to at least try the wired remote to see if this works.
Back to Top
Rno. View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 May 2006
Country: United States
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Posts: 1794
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rno. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 April 2011 at 18:27
Wow, R-L works for me, and how! That mossy forest is amazing, and it emphasizes the benefit of maximum DOF for your subject. I think the dog would snap into 3D even more, had it been sharp from head to tail (even a sharp background would help the 3D experience, but would take focus away from the dog to some degree, I think).

Anyway, thanks for posting them up this way, and I can only recommend for you to practice the cross-eyed view. Once you have it down, it just snaps in within a second or three, and you see all the effect without the need of extra software or processing. Okay, enough.

For the camera connection, there are two ways to do it: either with a remote, or without a remote. If the two cameras are close together and rigged up so that they can be handheld, releasing one camera to trigger the other will work just fine. In that case, simply connect all three poles of your remote connector with each other. To make it more practical for other uses, you would put a male + female stereo audio connector in between, so you can separate the connection and plug in a remote (with a respective stereo connector on its lead). For the connectors I am talking about, google "stereo connectors" and the first top left image is what I mean (a green plug). I bet you have used many of them.

If you have a wider-based 2-camera rig, with the cameras tripod mounted, you may prefer to release them with a remote. In that case, build a Y cable that combines in the remote and splits out to the two cameras, again connecting each of the three remote poles with the same other. I think this should be clear and not need a diagram. I can scribble one if needed, though, just let me know.

ETA: the hard-wired connection cable might have one disadvantage: if you ever want to experiment with a wider camera base, it may be too short ;)

Edited by Rno. - 03 April 2011 at 18:29
Ungeeking
Back to Top
PeteMag View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 July 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 842
Post Options Post Options   Quote PeteMag Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 April 2011 at 19:02
I see what plug you mean now, would the following diagram work? (sorry for the worst image ever to grace dyxums pages!).

With or without the plug which I presume is just a way of removing the remote unit.

If the cameras just need connecting and firing one will activate the other, I might just do that. Thanks for the info and help.

Back to Top
Rno. View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 May 2006
Country: United States
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Posts: 1794
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rno. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 April 2011 at 19:13
Duh, why scribble a diagram, when we have a camera! Below are the two options I described:


The direct connection of two alpha bodies, in my case with a female-female adapter in between to connect the two male stereo plugs (I could have made it simpler, with one male and one female plug at the end of the two cables).


My convoluted-looking remote setup, with the Y-splitter.

ETA: Oh, I only now saw your diagram. Yes, you are right on, that's how it works.

Edited by Rno. - 03 April 2011 at 19:14
Ungeeking
Back to Top
Rno. View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 May 2006
Country: United States
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Posts: 1794
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rno. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2012 at 22:29
Fresh from a shoot on Saturday. Unprocessed, other than the anaglyph conversion:









Ungeeking
 



Back to Top
PeteMag View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 July 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 842
Post Options Post Options   Quote PeteMag Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2012 at 08:59
For me the L and R seem just a little too far apart, making my eyes strain a bit, they do work though! How did you take the photos?
Back to Top
berlin steve View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 April 2009
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Berlin, Germany
Status: Online
Posts: 1385
Post Options Post Options   Quote berlin steve Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2012 at 16:52
Had to hunt around for one of the boy's 3d comics to see these, but good job.

I'm no 3d expert so there may be rules about how far the ideal distance from screen to glasses is for optimum effect, but the girl on the swing was a more satisfying 3d experience for my eyes (from a 3 dimensional aspect-and not from personal taste in girls- although she is pretty nice aside )
I don't know if it was a different distance apart from the two cameras when shooting, but for me she was sharper at the edges, and seemed a better conversion for my eyes to see as 3d.

Don't know if that makes sense, but hopefully you understood what I meant.
I'm an Englishman in Berlin...pics and more pics...
Back to Top
PeteMag View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 July 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 842
Post Options Post Options   Quote PeteMag Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2012 at 17:25




Here's a couple I took today, using just the one camera but two frames.

Back to Top
Rno. View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 May 2006
Country: United States
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Posts: 1794
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rno. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2012 at 18:19
@PeteMag: I see your point regarding the extreme sideway position. It is due to the physical depth of the subjects, giving the far back as well as the far front elements a chance to overlap. I also made one mistake, having the two cameras too far apart when I made these.

All those were taken with two 5Ds mounted on an 8" rail, so approx. 8" apart. All at rather long exposure times and high ISO to get small apertures for more DOF (IMHO the only flaw in you images: a sharp background immensely improves the 3D effect).

I do agree with you that there is a certain strain on the eyes, but I noticed it is only for a moment, until it snaps together, and then I don't feel it anymore. But my eyes may be more used to it than the average set

I particularly like your flowers, as it is the "live" subjects that appear so much more alive in 3D.

@berlin steve: genau! Your observations are correct in that the girl on the swing is an "easier" subjet. Reason is that it has less depth in relation to focal distance at an equal camera distance (sideways), in comparison to the other subjects. That said, the deeper a subject is, the more potential of rendering a 3D effect it has. You can test this yourself by arranging some objects behind each other and close to your eyes. Then look at them, and you will find that you cannot align all at the same time but have to jump to different depth levels for each one. In nature, we are used to this. On a flat 3D image, we tend to want to see it all at once and strain our eyes to deliver. (at least I think that this is one reason for these issues).

If I had to do these images again, I would move the two cameras closer together a bit to avoid the exaggeration that I now have. For farther-away subjects, more camera distance (sideways) helps to emphasize a 3D effect. One can easily study that on paper by simulating angles-of-view resulting from different side distances and subject distances from the camera(s).

I recently did some skiers on a slope and will post some anaglyphs on those as well. Stay tuned.
Ungeeking
Back to Top
ggerbenn View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 March 2009
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Post Options Post Options   Quote ggerbenn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2012 at 19:33
What focal length do you use for these photo's?
I don't have two same body's and lenses, I was thinking to de the same thing, but I think that the distance between the to lenses is to big.
It should be arond 7 cm and not 8"...
If the distance between the lens and the subject is long, the space between the lenses can be more than 7 cm.
Or am I mistaken?
You don't take a photograph, you make it.
Back to Top
Rno. View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 May 2006
Country: United States
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Posts: 1794
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rno. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2012 at 20:36
@ggerbenn: I use the 18-70mm lens on both, and I select FL depending on image requirements. Before I had this setup, I experimented with two different cameras (5D and A700 at the time) and the above kit lens at 50mm and a 50mm macro lens on the other body. There were color differences, but that was all, and in an anaglyph conversion, that is virtually not discernible. Just keep everything on manual and on settings as equal as possible.

About lens distance...the eyes are somewhere around 3"/7 cm apart. That will definitely not create any issues—except that the resulting 3D effect might be too weak, particularly for more distant subjects. So there you may want to use a wider distance for sure. It also depends on your personal taste—to get it natural or more or less emphasized. I am still experimenting with this.
Ungeeking
Back to Top
Rno. View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 May 2006
Country: United States
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Posts: 1794
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rno. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2012 at 20:54
I was just about to post my snow images when I noticed something disturbing: a kind of shadow effect, where a contoured, jagged line runs vertically through the picture. I realized that this is the result of resizing a larger anaglyph after it was converted. So, I need to fix this and go back to redo the five studio shots above before I continue. Will let you know so you can revisit them in a better shape.

ETA: I found out about these lines and realized that they cannot be avoided if a subject has too much depth, so I will just leave them.

Edited by Rno. - 29 February 2012 at 01:41
Ungeeking
Back to Top
Rno. View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 May 2006
Country: United States
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Posts: 1794
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rno. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 February 2012 at 01:43
Okay, let's get out into the snow. These were taken on a sunny day, back- or sidelit to light up the thrown-up powder. All hand held, on the same 8" rail, with varying FLs. There is never time to focus, so one pre-set focus (and FL) needs to work for what is coming at you out of nowhere. Experience with the situation at hand helps.









a few more in the next post...
Ungeeking
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Dyxum Photographs > Themed Views Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

Find us on Google+

Feel free to contact us if needed.

Links monetized by viglink VigLink