-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
3D modeling with only one sensor and lens?
- Thread starter lili23
- Start date
Sailor Blue
Forum Pro
To see depth, i.e. 3D, you need to see two overlapping images. Our front facing and overlapping binocular vision is the reason we see depth over most of our visual fields, the part in front of us. At the outer edges of our vision there is no overlap so our peripheral vision isn't 3D.
Depth perception - Wikipedia
To replicate depth perception photographically you need two images taken with a horizontal separation between the two images, each image viewed by only one eye.
You can take the two required images with two cameras, a dual lens camera, or by moving a single camera from side to side as you take the two images.
Taking the two images with a single camera requires that you move it side to side. There are mechanical devices to do this or you can just move your body side to side, which is called the cha cha method.
Stereo photography techniques - Wikipedia
Stereoscopy.com - The World of 3D-Imaging! (3D Photography / Stereo Photography)
To view the two images in 3D you need an appropriate device to show each image to only one eye, or you need to learn how to do this by your self.
This is one type of viewing device that uses two lenses that show your left and right eyes only the appropriate image so that your brain can combine the two images so that you see the image with depth. This type of device for viewing prints has been around since the 1840's. Virtual reality devices are a variation of this type of viewer.
You can color one image red and the other blue green and view a single image with the two views overlapping. You need red/blue green anaglyph glasses for this.
eBay - Anaglyph Glasses
Anaglyph 3D image
The 3D you see in a movie theater uses polarized lights to project two overlapping images on a screen. The glasses you wear have polarized lenses that let you see only one of the images with each eye.
If you have a 3D TV they swap the two images on the screen and use special glasses synchronized to the screen to show you only one image at a time
With practice you can learn to see only one of the two images when they are shown side by side. Reversing the positions of the two images and viewing them with crossed eyes is generally easier.
Non-cross eyed viewing 3D image
Cross eyed viewing image
--
Living and loving it in Pattaya, Thailand. Canon 7D - See the gear list for the rest.
Last edited:
What you mean "3D modeling" A real 3D object? Thats need to be photographet from all sides. And yes, with one lens.
Two lens method is "only" stereo photography, not 3D modeling.
Yes, I do this when clients want a 3D lenticular print using one of their own images .The software that I use creates a depth map for the image and after you choose the number of images, it generates in-between views. I've gotten some great results
.
Gerry Siegel
Senior Member
There are ways to simulate depth ( the actual word is parallax) from a flat image. Proven by movie conversions but I cant say how it is done...fascination simulation though....The traditional and arguably the best most direct way is to duplicate a two eyed view by two sensored images. Image capture is another way, but in essence it gives multiple angles to re create the object. For us amateurs, the tried and true two eyed two lens two image method is pretty well proven. As shown by its history. Or, of course, there is holography, but that is another optical tour de force. Modeling, not sure exactly what is meant. 3-D can be achieved by other clues in a photo. Well known byRembrandt and Michelangelo. If you take my meaning.Yes, I do this when clients want a 3D lenticular print using one of their own images .The software that I use creates a depth map for the image and after you choose the number of images, it generates in-between views. I've gotten some great results
Last edited:
Gerry Siegel
Senior Member
Pat S. Parallel pair. Del Rey Beach FL (1957)
I have seen lenticular prints of all kinds over the years. I collected a few. Interesting and of value being viewer free..most are 11X14 and do not engulf one as great stereo aspires to do...I could be wrong on that, let IMAX lovers decide...
Most are a mere simulacrum of the depth effect of the original image ( look up term orthostereo, it is important info ). Why lenticulars never really took off and are often cheesy IMO. Polaroid Vectographs were another interesting but pola glasses based Polaroid process. A slide in a viewer is only way to judge the quality of an image in stereo. Meaning that any reliance on two pairs on a flat page even with a Pokescope ( look up Pokescope) or similar prism or mirror aids are never really super duper great. As for anaglyphs. Less I say about anaglyphs the less I will offend those who see the world in flashes of cyan and red orange However, there is a good site that shows some well made stereos especially by a brilliant 3-D artist named Harold Lloyd. That Harold Lloyd.. And for those who seek quality on a computer page with eyeballs only, it is worth checking out. I hasten to add that depth effect is an important part of stereoscopy but photographic quality of subject is important. Placement of the stereo window (another significant term to check out) is vital, and can make or break an image in 3-D...if you understand the stereo window concept which some do and some do not alas....... Harold L had skill in all the foregoing..Treu.... Me, .I always tried and shxxtcanned those that did not measure up.... ( PS. I have at least four old but good achromatic viewers with lights that I use for my rather large collection of vintage family scrap book slides. All hand mounted by me...shoot, it is a hobby and my first love. My second love? Doing portraits of the fair sex...Aloha for a while, signed, Gerry with a G... Postscript ): This happy forum has a range of interests. Some new, some old hands it seems...Gear is part of the pictture verily and is often a do it yourself approach- given lack of corporate market support that just is and will remain I fear. It is rewarding effort but tough IMO as is most good things. I modestly refer tp a few simple recipes to gain enjoyment and involvement... We all would like an easy road. Me too... Not there ... Since the boom of the 1950s and the late lamented Fuji W two lens cams series spurt, it takes some doing. I mean serious intent... George Themelis a serious contemporary practitioner does his work with spliced cameras or spliced digital cameras. Now THAT is tough work and I admire his approach...Check out "DR T" on Facebook and eBay. Smart guy... And Hillary Hess, who does both still and video and movie in 3-D. Helpful folk all....Happy Trails, ye two eyed folks. Look at Hillary's site here: Both cross and parallel, side by side. For those who learned the parallel (my much preferred method. There is a never ending debate on cross vs parallel. Some just can't do parallel. i get it...I use the Pokescope gizmo a lot if pairs are large separation FYI. Look up Pokescope prism device. About fifty US simoleons. I have no vew on Virtual Reality. I await its presence in the local mall before I render praise...so it goes.https://www.facebook.com/groups/400565609972144/?ref=bookmarks
Last edited:
Dark Mower
Member
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 17
Are you talking about using a beam splitter? The adapter fits over a lens, it is eye width adjusted, so with one camera two stereo images are taken.
It seems to be the other way round as the top photo gives a correct 3D view when using the crossed method to view it than the bottom photo.
Brian
What software do you use?Yes, I do this when clients want a 3D lenticular print using one of their own images .The software that I use creates a depth map for the image and after you choose the number of images, it generates in-between views. I've gotten some great results
Brian
Gerry Siegel
Senior Member
Familiar with the beam splitters. I have often used the Stereo Tach in the early high school days with a single film camera. ( You may be interested in how some DIY ers modified the device by ungluing the front first surface mirrors so they can swing for closer stereo window for closer objects, had to be pried lose,,,. i bought the more recent Franka splitter which is cheaper device using back silvered mirrors (less crisp, never liked it at all). I recall there was a nice Pentax model ( prisms?) that was presumed better than most. Of course Leica made a great prism splitter for its cameras. Actually several, from 1930s onward for a 50mm lens.....As a side mention, I also did a few 16mm movie stuff with the Elgeet optical splitter and lens device. Remember home movies .gents and ladies ?? As with all these fixed mirrors, the images were tall and narrow and there was a hard to control space in the middle. But they represented a cheapo way to get into stereoscopy. Beyond the cha cha of still objects that is. Photo: A stereo 16mm clip w the vintage Elgeet Cine Stereo beamsplitter/ lens combo. Elgeet made a projection lens with pola filters for screening these kind of shots..,..yes, the old old days of the roaring ha ha fifties.. One fatal defect= the fifty percent loss of projection light from the plane polarizers of that time. Film did not like super hot projection bulbs either....cinema was not my specialty. But there are some good histories on line if you look them up.[ATTACH alt="Elgeet Cine Stereo beam splitter and projection lens combination for 16mm film cameras of the 1950s said:2099870[/ATTACH]
Elgeet Cine Stereo beam splitter and projection lens combination for 16mm film cameras of the 1950s
Dark Mower, post: 62367392, member: 1875475"]
Are you talking about using a beam splitter? The adapter fits over a lens, it is eye width adjusted, so with one camera two stereo images are taken.
16mm beamsplitter Elgeet Cine Stereo device splitter and fixed focus and FL lens ( not as nifty as the Bolex Swiss model, but USA made in New York I recall..cute but fussy to use and align )
Attachments
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum