3D films

Many years ago, I bought a "Stereo Camera" from QVC (Yes, I know, I'm sad for watching QVC, let alone actually buying anything from them :o ), similar to the Loreo Stereo Camera shown on this page:-

http://www.3RABtereo.com/viewmaster/cam-lorii.html

In fact, it was identical to the line drawing above the paragraph entitled "Tips for taking dramatic 3-D pictures".

I digress.

You can also get a stereo lens to fit a standard SLR camera.

http://www.3RABtereo.com/viewmaster/sca-lic.html

Here's an idea.

Suppose you obtained a stereo lens and fitted it to a video camera.

Could you shoot through the stereo lens, then play it back on a small, say 5 inch, TV and view ot through a "Mini Folding Viewer" ( http://www.3RABtereo.com/viewmaster/lor-minv.html ), with the print support back removed, held against the screen, and see moving stereo pictures?
 
As you might have guessed I also own a Loreo camera and I used to have a Nimslo lenticular one too. Tragic or what?
There are stereo attatchments for movie cameras which give two sets of images but if your suggested method delivers watchable results or not I wouldn't like to say.
As stereo viewers are simply an aid to crossing your eyes, as opposed to red/green glasses which keep the two images separate and aimed at the correct eye, it may well work. :)
 
As an afterthought, they supply these lenses for Digital SLRs (eg. Cannon), and some of the more advanced Digital SLRs allow you to shoot short movies.

This being the case, you might be able to shoot stereo movies with a Digital SLR and a "3D Lens-In-A-Cap".

Certainly worth a try.
 
I went to the Live 95 show at Earls Court, and I remember Sanyo were demoing a series of LCD TVs which displayed 3D images without the need for glasses. The experience was quite uncomfortable - you had to sort of "relax" your eyes, a bit like when you look at a Magic Eye picture. But it worked and was impressive.

That was ten years ago! I can't believe that it has taken so long for the technology to come to market.
 
Maybe illegal was the wrong word but I there are (or used to be) rules about that sort of thing which the broadcasters had to follow.
Given the rubbish picture quality of some of some digital channels, clearly they don't worry about it too much. :)
 
Back
Top