A bit off topic, but, as Horseman 3d camera owner, I'd like to respond.

> I still think that the TL 120 is a deal considering that the Horseman 3D
> camera (35mm by the way) is nearly $5000!!!! Maybe I'm showing my
> ignorance by I can't see how they can justify charging 5 grand for a
> 35mm stereo camera with a very limited (1.3 inch) amount of lens
> separation.

You have a point... This (Horseman) is a specialty camera but it is
exactly for that reason that it will appeal to a small minority of 3d
enthusiasts.

I have taken some great stereo portraits with it. The construction of the
camera is superb since the body is based on the acclaimed Hasselblad Xpan
II. Unlike RBT and other custom-made cameras, this camera feels solid and
indestructible.

I would never recommend this camera to a stereo enthusiast unless these
conditions are met: 1) He has a very good "general purpose" 3d camera. 2)
He has a passion for hypostereos and close ups. 3) He does not mind
spending a lot of money on his 3d hobby.

Here are my 3d blogs related to this camera:
http://drt3d.blogspot.com/search/label/Horseman%203D

George Themelis

Hey Doc, very nice review of the Horseman 3d.


I am curious.... when shooting normal subjects, say 10 ft - 15 ft away,
does the images in the viewer suffer any peculiar effects? I realize
the short IO separation will produce less than normal on-film deviation,
but in theory that will only reduce the depth sensation.


With Hypers, all kinds of problems can be introduced into viewing, as
the relationship between near/far subjects is not what the brain
expects, since no human have eyes 6" + apart. So miniaturization and
possibly card-boarding are consequences, but not for everyone.


Since no humans have 34mm eye spacing either, I am curious what other
effects people notice, if any, other than less than normal on film
deviation (depth sensation). The obvious guess would be the opposite
of miniaturization, or giganticism?


Bill

> I am curious.... when shooting normal subjects, say 10 ft - 15 ft away,
> does the images in the viewer suffer any peculiar effects? I realize
> the short IO separation will produce less than normal on-film deviation,
> but in theory that will only reduce the depth sensation.
>
> With Hypers, all kinds of problems can be introduced into viewing, as
> the relationship between near/far subjects is not what the brain
> expects, since no human have eyes 6" + apart. So miniaturization and
> possibly card-boarding are consequences, but not for everyone.
>
> Since no humans have 34mm eye spacing either, I am curious what other
> effects people notice, if any, other than less than normal on film
> deviation (depth sensation). The obvious guess would be the opposite
> of miniaturization, or giganticism?

Hi Bill,

Interesting comments... Yes, tt is generally accepted that a hyperstereo
makes the scene look smaller and a hypostereo makes the scene look larger.

I like to explain this as follows: When we view, say, a hyperstereo taken
with cameras separated by 10 feet, then it is like our eyes are separated
by 10 feet. So, we are giants looking at a normal scene. Our brains
however refuse to think of ourselves as giants, so they scale us down to
regular human beings, in which case the scene is transformed to a
miniature scene.

You said "not for everyone". We are dealing with perception here...
Whether we get this sense of miniaturization in a hyperstereo or not,
depends on a number of things, including the actual scene and our previous
exposure to hyperstereos.

This reminds me of a funny story: In a club meeting I had one of the
PanaVista viewers (http://home.att.net/~sales3d/WPanaVista.htm) The slides
that come with these viewer are all twin camera hyperstereos. The cameras
are usually separated by more then just touching each other and the result
is a very strong hyperstereo. There was a scene with a building, trees,
etc. One of our new members, a lady professor of art and photography in a
local university, told me with great authority that this was a small scale
model and not a real scene. When I tried to explain to her about
hyperestereos and the "scale model" effect, she absolutely refused to
accept the fact that this was actually a REAL scene, photographed with a
wide stereo base.

It seems that this miniaturization is stronger for beginners, than
seasoned stereo photographers. After all these years of exposure to
stereo pictures, for me a hyperstereo is just a hyperstereo. I recognize
how some pictures especially of buildings/houses, look like small scale
models, but I am not startled by this effect (any more).

Now, the opposite effect does not work as well for me (and I suspect for
most people). When I see a macro stereo of a flower with maybe a bee
flying around, I know I am seeing a normal flower and a bee and not a huge
flower and a monster bee.

There are few hypostereos I have seen where I got a strong hypo-stereo
impression, i.e. things being bigger. I remember the first slide I saw
from a ISO Duplex 120 camera (even though this camera takes MF film, it
produces Realist format images and the spacing of the lenses is around
34mm) of some horses, they looked enormous to me, even though they were
really small horses. In another experiment I photographed a really narrow
pathway with a slide bar and a smaller stereo base and it appeared like a
very wide road. Finally, I once saw a picture of a cat with a Nimslo
camera, taken outdoors from a very low perspective, and I got this intense
impression that this was a "MONSTER cat", or that I was a mouse, ready to
be eaten by the mean cat.

So, in theory, stereo base affects the scale of the image, but what is
actually perceived depends on a number of factors, including our previous
exposure to this effect.

One interesting demonstration of the effect of stereo base is to
superimpose the same object, photographed with different stereo bases. I
have a slide by Ted Lambert (a 1970s extremely creative stereo
photographer from NY) who photographed a little figure using different
stereo bases in a multiple exposure. I like to show this slide in
projection. You see 3 figures of different sizes, one large, one medium,
one small. Then I ask the audience to take their glasses off and confirm
that the 3 figures have *exactly* the same size. The perceived difference
in size is the result of using different stereo bases.

Finally, there are many well-known trick effects that utilize a variable
stereo base. In one, you take a hypostereo of a glass or bottle, and then
a hyperstereo of a female model. Properly recorded and superimposed, it
appears like the model is inside the bottle. How does the brain interpret
this? Either as a huge bottle with a human inside, or a regular bottle
with a pixie inside. This is the theory of stereo relativity. :)

As, you can tell, I have given some thought to these issues. :) As a
matter of fact, I recently presented a workshop in our stereo club on
"Variable Stereo Base". My notes are here:
http://info3d.home.att.net/StereoBase.pdf

I am planning to repeart this workshop (improved!) at the Grand Rapids NSA
convention this summer. I hope I'll see you there Bill! Then we can talk
more about it.

George Themelis

Now, the opposite effect does not work as well for me (and I suspect for
most people). When I see a macro stereo of a flower with maybe a bee
flying around, I know I am seeing a normal flower and a bee and not a huge
flower and a monster bee.

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "DrT \(George Themelis\)"
wrote:

>
> Now, the opposite effect (hypostereo makes the scene look larger)
> does not work as well for me.

I think George is getting used to his S1 shots. %^)


Seems like this thread should be over on P3D. No?

Chuck Holzner