Potential low cost sbs solution for SLR
 

I think this concept: YouTube - Maker Faire projects creates 3D video with only one camera , has some potential. with a semi-cylindrical lens ( or shaped mirrors) to squeeze the two halves, in the light path, it takes care of the syncs, zooms, and other nasties just like the Panasonic etc., while it could be lot less expensive for non-affluent people, and experimenters.

I think he deserves points for creating a simple, clever solution, but it's very imperfect. You wind up throwing away a lot of resolution if you want to wind up in any standard video format.

If I manage to optically (anamorphically) squeeze the two half's first, I don't see how it looses any more resolution than any other side-by-side processing/broadcast/TV, with the exception of frame packing/3D-BD. If the target is movie theater or other technology with the means of projection of a full dual resolution optical output, then of course resolution is lost, even though there are some tricks that can be done with it as well. But like I said, it solves many problems associated with dual camera rigs, that often create much worse artifacts than reduced resolution. I actually loose some of the original resolution during just about any post.

That's true. If you can adapt an anamorphic lens that makes at least a 2:1 squeeze, it wouldn't be any worse than the side by side squeeze that's becoming a common format.

Again, it's simple & it's clever. It's not perfect, but I can definitely see the potential.

Dof
 

The trouble with this sort of mirror/prism setup occurs when your camera lens has less than infinite depth of field. If you're focused on a distant object, the seam between the two mirrors is out of focus and therefore there is a blurry vertical boundary between the right and left halves of the side-by-side image being recorded. In the extreme case where your DSLR is stopped to something like f1.4, this blurry zone will occupy most of the side-by-side frame. Hence, this rig is only a bright light (or small lens/sensor) solution.

You are right, there are problems with a simplest version of the implementation. That is why it was brought up as a POTENTIAL. Everything has problems. Simple lens has about dozen aberrations, and thank goodness the lens designers didn't give up and designed lenses to correct lot of it. No-one designed a universal lens yet, however. Same here, side-by-side rigs cannot be used for extreme macro, and mirror rigs are generally heavier and bulkier, harder to align, the latest Panasonic lenses have fixed i.o., independent SLR are hard to time sync, etc. etc. The opportunity is in trying to find a solutions for the problems, IMHO.

Brown's Stereoscopic Transmitter
 

A bit of technology archeology reveals that this approach was patented in 1894 by Theodore Brown

Also... see Brown's advertisement (attached) for his "Stereoscopic Transmitter" ... "fitted with Anti-Climatic and Untarnishable Spectra."

Well, that's good news. At least the idea is public domain! :)

I am sorry for ever bringing it up. Obviously it was a dumb and ignorant topic. I will leave future inputs into this forum to the enlightened ones....

Huh?
 

Hardly D & I? I think the addition of anamorphic optics to the Brown invention is an excellent idea. I hope you or someone reading this thread is motivated to try it out (and report back!)

Having tried to build a Brown mirror rig and used several near-to-single-lens systems, including the Stitz and a Russian device whose manual I can't decypher, I thought I'd chime in about the blurry vertical boundary issue.

I'm amazed at the ingenuity of 19th century stereoscopic inventors. If you can, track down copies of , , and . The first two were reprinted by Reel 3D in 1994... I have no idea what the copyright status is... Reel 3D closed shop about 6 years ago...

Pavel - this is a discussion thread. I was just adding my (limited) knowledge about this device. We all follow in the footsteps of the true enlightened ones, the stereographers from the Victorian age!

There's nothing new in stereoscopic 3D that's not digital. And a lot of the digital stuff emulates older stuff.

But it's not being new doesn't mean it's not useful. Or that it's not new to me.