Conversations

Photos

Files

All groups

About

<< Previous Thread Depth Folio? Next Thread >>

Subject: Depth Folio?
Date: 2007-01-28 09:59:25
From: Sam Smith

A picture's worth a thousand words, several theories and 100s of
posts. I am proposing a group of slides to go around to this group in
an effort to establish the following:

1. What is the acceptable range of depth
in a medium format viewer and slide
2. What is the acceptable far-point deviation
3. The acceptable near point deviation
4. Acceptable circles of confusion

"Acceptable" is the key word.
To me is defines many things:

1. What is psycologically acceptable
(does it look natural or weird in some way)
2. What is comfortable to view
(does the slide cause eyestrain)

Several statments and assumptions have been made over the last little
while, yet nobody has offered physical examples to show their points
of view. This Depth Folio would offer a framework for everyone to
judge for themselves.

The catch: I am not offering to put this together, I am merely
suggesting it. I am also not offering images. I merely want to
participate. I would suggest a group of slides that are good examples
of double depth, extreme depth, out-of-focus depth, shallow depth, etc
that demonstrate all the issues that have been discussed. That way all
of us can be better informed, and our future slides improved.

Are there any takers? Any interest?

Please DO NOT contact me offlist. Discuss it here.

Sam

Subject: Re: Depth Folio?
Date: 2007-01-28 13:08:57
From: Dave Casey

I like this idea a lot.
If I were to try to create a series of slides for this using a heidoscop, what would be the best way to go about it?
Same subject at 1/30 1/40 1/50 1/60 with background at infinity?
Same subject at 1/30 1/40 1/50 1/60 with limited background depth of what?
Same subject with a range of aperature settings.
Same subject with some high speed film
Other?

On 1/28/07, Sam Smith < groups@stereoscopia.com> wrote:

A picture's worth a thousand words, several theories and 100s of
posts. I am proposing a group of slides to go around to this group in
an effort to establish the following:

1. What is the acceptable range of depth
in a medium format viewer and slide
2. What is the acceptable far-point deviation
3. The acceptable near point deviation
4. Acceptable circles of confusion

"Acceptable" is the key word.
To me is defines many things:

1. What is psycologically acceptable
(does it look natural or weird in some way)
2. What is comfortable to view
(does the slide cause eyestrain)

Several statments and assumptions have been made over the last little
while, yet nobody has offered physical examples to show their points
of view. This Depth Folio would offer a framework for everyone to
judge for themselves.

The catch: I am not offering to put this together, I am merely
suggesting it. I am also not offering images. I merely want to
participate. I would suggest a group of slides that are good examples
of double depth, extreme depth, out-of-focus depth, shallow depth, etc
that demonstrate all the issues that have been discussed. That way all
of us can be better informed, and our future slides improved.

Are there any takers? Any interest?

Please DO NOT contact me offlist. Discuss it here.

Sam

Subject: New TL120 version? and comments
Date: 2007-01-28 13:46:15
From: Dale Yingst

I have heard that ChinaWorld has successfully tested a motor drive or
autowinder which may be in a latter TL120 version. I love that feature
on my RBTs but on the TL120 that requires more deliberate shooting,
there are some other changes I would like more, like an accessory 60mm
lens panel , or double exposure.

With the TL120, I have finally started to take a quantity of MF shots.
I definitely have to adopt a different shooting style as my shots
generally have shallow depth. I am used to shooting full frame 35mm
with 35mm lenses. The framing difference (square format vs landscape)
and the normal lens(80mm vs slightly wide 35mm for my full frame 35mm
camera) has required more adaptation than I originally anticipated.

Dale Yingst

Subject: Re: Depth Folio?
Date: 2007-01-29 09:56:54
From: Oleg Vorobyoff

A folio would be interesting, but not, I think, to establish a set of
acceptable depth parameters. What would be useful is to learn what
proportion of the viewing public finds various extreme parameters
uncomfortable to view or aesthetically unpleasant, and how choice of
subject matter can mitigate discomfort or aesthetic sensitivities. To
accomplish that I would suggest the following. Participants would be
encouraged, but not required, to add to the folio their own extreme slides.
Each slide should be accompanied with a description of what the
photographer was trying to accomplish or test along with values of relevant
parameters. As the folio circulates participants should enclose comments
regarding the slides on, say, 3x5 inch cards. These comments should also
be posted on a web site. There should also be a questionnaire on which
participants can register their degree of comfort with and enjoyment of
each slide on, say, a scale of 0 to 10, on which 0 signifies unacceptable
pain or total disgust and 10 signifies total comfort and ecstasy. This
data can later be tabulated to give us a sense of the range of reactions to
various types of slides. Participants should be encouraged to have family
members and friends view the folio and fill out the questionnaire to
broaden the scope of the survey. Upon reading the results of the survey
each photographer can decide individually how much and how many of us to
annoy with his or her slides.

I can't volunteer to bird-dog the folio since I tend to be out of contact
for months at a time, but could set up the necessary forms, tabulate the
data, and post both interim and comprehensive reports to the group, if such
an effort would be worthwhile. I could also shoot and mount some stereo
pairs at various deviations and window placements.

Oleg Vorobyoff

Subject: Re: Depth Folio?
Date: 2007-01-29 19:21:06
From: Sam Smith

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Oleg Vorobyoff wrote:

> I can't volunteer to bird-dog the folio since I tend to be out of

contact

> for months at a time, but could set up the necessary forms, tabulate

the

> data, and post both interim and comprehensive reports to the group,

if such

> an effort would be worthwhile.

I think the suggestion is much too complicated (see full post).

All that's needed is a list of people who want to view, people who
want to include samples, and a host address.

Forget forms, data and polls. This list is a discussion list, what
more do you need?

Sam

Subject: Re: Depth Folio?
Date: 2007-01-29 19:59:55
From: Chuck Holzner

Dave wrote:

>I like this idea a lot.
>If I were to try to create a series of slides for this using a heidoscop,
>what would be the best way to go about it?

Noting that it takes a year or more for a folio to get around, it seems like it would take a very long time to example and counter example any type of test slide unless there were very few people in the folio.

That said;

1) I would like to see a slide that was taken with a normal base MF camera that has everything in focus but has "too much OFD".

2) I would like to see a slide that has everything so sharp that it hurts my eyes to look at it. (Sharp infinity next to sharp close-up?).

3) I would like to see a slide taken with a stereo camera that has keystone distortion that makes more than 2 degrees of parallax painful.

4) I would like to see a slide where poor composition hurt my eyes.

Sam wrote:

>> Several statments and assumptions have been made over the last little
>> while, yet nobody has offered physical examples to show their points
>> of view. This Depth Folio would offer a framework for everyone to
>> judge for themselves.

I am in both the IMF folio and Folio II and in every round for the last few years I have included at least one slide with more than 2.8mm OFD. Only after I pushed the depth so far that Depth of Field was a problem, did I get a negative comment on any of them related to depth. Call it the "ugly baby" if you want but I have had negative remarks on other slides for other reasons and seem them on slides of others. In both of the folios I am in, I have one "Extreme Depth" slide in each right now. If you have seen either folio you have seen my examples. Sam has the IMF folio now. So far all the comments have not shown that anyone has problems with the depth. (Maybe he will put one in now.) Maybe everyone is just being nice. Would they also be "Nice" with a depth folio?

Chuck

________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.firstva.com

Subject: Re: Depth Folio?
Date: 2007-01-29 23:36:53
From: Sam Smith

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck Holzner" wrote:

... In both of the folios I am in, I have one "Extreme Depth" slide
in each right now. If you have seen either folio you have seen my
examples. Sam has the IMF folio now. So far all the comments have not
shown that anyone has problems with the depth. (Maybe he will put one
in now.)

I have commented on the above slide. With Chuck's permission (!) I can
put it into the PHOTOS section of this group, complete with my posted
comment. Chuck?

Sam

Subject: Re: Depth Folio?
Date: 2007-01-30 05:02:59
From: Don Lopp

Seen today, on MF3D:

> Noting that it takes a year or more for a folio to get around,
> it seems like it would take a very long time to example and counter
> example any type of test slide unless there were very
> few people in the folio.

Why would it take, "a year or more for", this, "folio to get around..."
? Would not a few days for each, be sufficient enough time ?

I would welcome the opportunity, to assemble an appropriate folio.

> 1) I would like to see a slide that was taken with a normal

base MF camera that has everything in focus but has "too much OFD".
I would like to see a MF slide, that he was, "able to view
comfortably"...," that contains an OFD as large as 9.6mm...".
Suggested, on, "1-19-07".

> 2) I would like to see a slide that has everything so sharp that
> it hurts my eyes to look at it... ."

------------

I doubt that such a, "sharp", MF slide has ever existed. The near
point distance was not indicated.

> 3) I would like to see a slide taken with a stereo camera
> that has keystone distortion that makes more than 2 degrees of
> parallax painful.

----------------

> 4) I would like to see a slide where poor composition hurt my eyes.

This should be an easy one to produce. ------------

I would like to see a MF slide where one can, "get acceptable DoF from
5 feet to infinity". Suggested, on "1-26-07"

Why the terms, "hurt my eyes to look at it", and "parallax painfull" ?
I believe that, "uncomfortable viewing", would be more appropriate.

Subject: Re: Depth Folio?
Date: 2007-01-30 09:08:23
From: Chuck Holzner

"Sam Smith"
"Extreme Depth"

>I have commented on the above slide. With Chuck's permission (!) I can
>put it into the PHOTOS section of this group, complete with my posted
>comment. Chuck?

>No problem Sam, you can even post the comments from others who are in the folio.

Chuck

________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.firstva.com

Subject: Re: Depth Folio?
Date: 2007-01-30 09:49:57
From: Chuck Holzner

Don Lopp wrote:

>Why would it take, "a year or more for", this, "folio to get around..."

Just basing on historical data. It does depend on how many people it is to go to and where they live. How often do you get the same folio?

>? Would not a few days for each, be sufficient enough time ?
>

Not according to historical data.

>I would welcome the opportunity, to assemble an appropriate folio.

Set up a plan. I will be happy to be included.

>
>> 1) I would like to see a slide that was taken with a normal
>base MF camera that has everything in focus but has "too much OFD".
>I would like to see a MF slide, that he was, "able to view
>comfortably"...," that contains an OFD as large as 9.6mm...".
>Suggested, on, "1-19-07".

I never said I had such a slide. DoF is obviously the "discomfort factor", I only said the parallax was easy to view, not the focus over the depth. (DoF is the limiting factor, not OFD.)

Don should be able to produce a slide with normal base that has "too much OFD" and is sharp throughout.

>
>> 2) I would like to see a slide that has everything so sharp that
>> it hurts my eyes to look at it... ."
> ------------
>
>I doubt that such a, "sharp", MF slide has ever existed. The near
>point distance was not indicated.

I would let the photographer determine the near point distance. It had been alleged that having a near and far too close together and both sharper then the eye could do with its' DoF would be "uncomfortable". I want to see one.

>
>> 3) I would like to see a slide taken with a stereo camera
>> that has keystone distortion that makes more than 2 degrees of
>> parallax painful.
> ----------------

Uncomfortable is just a lesser degree of pain.

>
>> 4) I would like to see a slide where poor composition hurt my eyes.
>This should be an easy one to produce. ------------

Sounds like one for you to make, Don.

>
>I would like to see a MF slide where one can, "get acceptable DoF from
>5 feet to infinity". Suggested, on "1-26-07"

Sam is posting one soon.

>
>Why the terms, "hurt my eyes to look at it", and "parallax painfull" ?
> I believe that, "uncomfortable viewing", would be more appropriate.

Just a matter of degree. More makes it more obvious.

Chuck

________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.firstva.com

Subject: Re: Depth Folio?
Date: 2007-01-30 19:14:08
From: Don Lopp

A request:

How about making available, the, "TEST", picture of the Pitcher Plant
that had a near point at about 18 inches, (457mm), and a far point at
infinity, which produced an on film deviation, (OFD), of about 10mm ?
"No one has told me that they can not converge on anything in the view."

This slide could help to confirm the premise, that, "...our eyes are
capable of, (viewing), at least 8 degrees of parallax without pain."
1-17-07, 5:31 PM, PST. I will continue to have doubts, until I see an
example that will support the 8 degrees of parallax contention.

Best regards,

DON

Subject: Re: Depth Folio?
Date: 2007-01-30 21:23:42
From: Sam Smith

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck Holzner" wrote:

> Noting that it takes a year or more for a folio to get around, it

seems like it would take a very long time to example and counter
example any type of test slide unless there were very few people in
the folio.

Ahh Chuck, always the optomist. Don't get this proposed "depth folio"
mixed up with the fullblown versions.

The "China Folio" introduced about a dozen people to the 3DWorld
images and system in 2005. I believe it only took a couple of months
to get to everyone. The "test folio" of a few years ago was also quite
brief (until it got in the wrong hands).

Chuck, why don't you volunteer? Just compile a list of participants
and make a package to send out. I think this would be more practical
to be US based, which makes you the perfect candidate! Tracking and
comments can be hosted here if needed.

In case nobody noticed, interest in MF3D has skyrocketed lately.
Thanks to new products, publicity from generous people like George
Themelis, and a relatively accessible group forum, more than ever
before are tuning in to the benefits of MF3D. Getting something out to
the people who have not yet fully experienced MF3D benefits everyone.
I think a small folio of a few images to a few people would benefit
all. It only costs postage, and there are no obligations to interested
parties besides sending it on to the next person unscathed.

It would also be great if someone else took the steering wheel for a
change!!!!

Sam

Subject: Re: Depth Folio?
Date: 2007-01-31 06:30:31
From: Chuck Holzner

Don Lopp Wrote:

>A request:
>
>How about making available, the, "TEST", picture of the Pitcher Plant
>that had a near point at about 18 inches, (457mm), and a far point at
>infinity, which produced an on film deviation, (OFD), of about 10mm ?
> "No one has told me that they can not converge on anything in the view."
>
>This slide could help to confirm the premise, that, "...our eyes are
>capable of, (viewing), at least 8 degrees of parallax without pain."
>1-17-07, 5:31 PM, PST. I will continue to have doubts, until I see an
>example that will support the 8 degrees of parallax contention.
>

No problem, I was looking at it today while looking for slides for the depth folio. As I said, the depth of field has been abused but the parallax is viewable without any real strain. I have other slides with OFD beyond the "MAOFD" as well. How many people are to be in this folio anyway?

I definitely want to see any slide you have, taken with a stereo camera with normal base, that is sharp throughout and has "too much OFD". Also one that is "uncomfortable" due to poor composition.

Chuck

________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.firstva.com

Subject: Re: Depth Folio?
Date: 2007-01-31 12:59:50
From: Chuck Holzner

"Sam Smith" wrote:

>The "China Folio" introduced about a dozen people to the 3DWorld
>images and system in 2005.
>I believe it only took a couple of months
>to get to everyone.

Sorry I missed it.

>The "test folio" of a few years ago was also quite
>brief (until it got in the wrong hands).

It was lost. Never found? A possible problem here too.

>
>Chuck, why don't you volunteer? Just compile a list of participants
>and make a package to send out.

I could do it if no net site is needed. I think that Don has already spoken for it though. (We are good friends, in spite of what it may look like on line.)

I think this would be more practical

>to be US based, which makes you the perfect candidate!

I can think of at least one Canadian who would likely want to see it.

>Tracking and
>comments can be hosted here if needed.

It would be needed.

>
>In case nobody noticed, interest in MF3D has skyrocketed lately.
>Thanks to new products, publicity from generous people like George
>Themelis, and a relatively accessible group forum, more than ever
>before are tuning in to the benefits of MF3D.

I have noticed that Sputniks on e-bay seem to bring higher prices now.

> Getting something out to
>the people who have not yet fully experienced MF3D benefits everyone.

One of the reasons I feel the "too much OFD" needs to be better understood and defined.

>I think a small folio of a few images to a few people would benefit
>all. It only costs postage, and there are no obligations to interested
>parties besides sending it on to the next person unscathed.
>

Slides demonstrating "depth problems" would be needed and it would be best that they come from those having problems so that they can be seen first hand and understood by all.

>It would also be great if someone else took the steering wheel for a
>change!!!!
>

Someone not trying to make money off MF 3-D? %^)

Chuck

________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.firstva.com