Rules for 3D photography?

Is there a minimum distance that the camera lens needs to be apart when taking a photo for the left and right eye in 3D photography.
Does this distance (distance between two camera lens) vary depending on how far the subject is to the camera?
Brian

The distance apart for the two lenses varies with subject distance.

Bercovitz Formulae for stereo base.

These are available for Android devices. I'm sure there are similar applications for Apple phones.

BaseCalc - Android Apps on Google Play

BaseCalc: A free pocket-sized stereo base calculator - www.stereoscopie.fr

For normal distances you use a lens separation equal to the human interocular distance of about 65mm.

For distance subjects you increase the lens separation to give the image a better 3D effect (hyper stereo). If the distance between the closest and furthest object is too great then viewing the two images can be uncomfortable.

For close up or macro images the lens separation must be reduced to give you a 3D image that is comfortable to view but you have to watch out for too great a distance between the subject and background.

Close-Up - Macro 3D

You should read through this thread, paying special attention to the posts by Turbguy1.

DPReview - Fuji 3D

I made a lot of (static) 3D macros .. only using "cha-cha-method". It works fine.

With ANY camera, better than all my 3D eqipment ...

Thanks Sailor Blue for the info and links.

Plenty for me to learn more about 3D photography.

Do you know any good sites that has a display of 3D photos as it would be good to see what is possible? I usually prefer viewing a 3D photo cross eyed so the left and right photo is side by side.

Brian

Martin Meier wrote:

I made a lot of (static) 3D macros .. only using "cha-cha-method". It works fine.

With ANY camera, better than all my 3D eqipment ...

What's the cha-cha-method?

Brian

Take a photo, move camera some centimeters to right, make a second photo - that's all.

Now you can create 3D with StereoPhotoMaker - best program - it's free.

Martin Meier wrote:

Take a photo, move camera some centimeters to right, make a second photo - that's all.

Now you can create 3D with StereoPhotoMaker - best program - it's free.

Thanks Martin.

Good to know that some things are still free.

When you say a few centimeters are you suggestion 4, 8 or more centimeters?

Would the distance between my eyes be a suitable distance?

Brian

Brisn5757 wrote:

Martin Meier wrote:

Take a photo, move camera some centimeters to right, make a second photo - that's all.

Now you can create 3D with StereoPhotoMaker - best program - it's free.

Thanks Martin.

Good to know that some things are still free.

When you say a few centimeters are you suggestion 4, 8 or more centimeters?

Would the distance between my eyes be a suitable distance?

Brian

Look down through the posts in this forum for lots of examples of 3D images taken by forum members.  A Google search will turn up many more.

The separation between human eyes is roughly 6.5cm or 2.6".  This is the normal amount you try to sway but you sway further for distant subjects and less for close up ones.

Go back to my first reply to you and check out the links I posted.

Google for "cha-cha 3d photos".

Sailor Blue wrote:

Brisn5757 wrote:

Martin Meier wrote:

Take a photo, move camera some centimeters to right, make a second photo - that's all.

Now you can create 3D with StereoPhotoMaker - best program - it's free.

Thanks Martin.

Good to know that some things are still free.

When you say a few centimeters are you suggestion 4, 8 or more centimeters?

Would the distance between my eyes be a suitable distance?

Brian

Look down through the posts in this forum for lots of examples of 3D images taken by forum members. A Google search will turn up many more.

The separation between human eyes is roughly 6.5cm or 2.6". This is the normal amount you try to sway but you sway further for distant subjects and less for close up ones.

Go back to my first reply to you and check out the links I posted.

Google for "cha-cha 3d photos".

Thanks Sailor Blue.

Brian

I experimented a bit too and think there is a problem actually.

Esp. for people photography, I found that one has to meet TWO rules simultaneously:

1. a normal interocular distance like 65mm.

2. a focal length (after cropping) such that the field of view - when viewed - and field of view - when photographed - become equal.

Esp. the latter rule is hard to ensure but absolutely important, I found. If violated, people appear wierdly distorted. If #1 is violated, people appear too small or too tall.

My preferred presentation medium is 65“ 4k 3D OLED where 3D imagery is absolutely stunning. But knowing that perfect images are possible only at one viewing distance is a bit frustrating.

To solve this, the image would have to scale if viewers moved closer or farer away - which actually would turn the screen into a perfect simulation of a window into another world. Until that day, a 3D (VR) head-up display is the best way to ensure the proper field of view. For smartphone stereo viewing a la Google cardboard, this is about 100 degrees.

For a 65“ screen at 3.5m viewing distance, it is a 85 mm lens which reproduces the correct angles - a rather long focal. But with increasing resolution, people move closer or use bigger screens over time. So, I consider anything between 50 and 85mm to be good focal lengths for people stereo photography not produced for VR.

If everything matches (if one moves to the right distance) on a 3D 4k OLED display, then the experience is outright stunning, much better than the experience in a movie theater. It really is a window into another world then. Of course, the industry had to decide to discontinue these products which you no longer can buy.

I think, to take off 3D must be paired with VR where both rules can be ensured. I am currently in kind of stand by, awaiting VR headsets to become both lightweight and high-res enough (100 degrees FoV requires 6k, 180 degree VR content 11kx11kx2) to become enjoyable.

Of course, for other subjects one may telax the rules. Subjects then may appear smaller (landscapes) or bigger (macro) than they actually are. Which is fine.

What is your experience with stereo photography? Did it work out as you hoped it would?

Secondphase wrote:

IMO, 65mm is a bit too much separation for objects closer than 3'. It would be better for 6' or more. If you look at the interocular specs for virtually all of the 3D camcorders made between 2011-2014- not really anything made since then - virtually all of them were in the 32mm- 45mm range. Even the pro ones were generally under 64mm. If your goal is to create nagative parallax - popout - which is generally strongest at distances of 4' feet or less, I would suggest using an IA distance of 35 - 45mm. 45mm should be good for overall 3D out to 75' or so. Most of your overall 3D effect will be in that zone with negative parallax best for objects within the first few feet. Beyond 75' or so, you will need to use a greater IA distance, but be aware that when the IA distance increases, it has the effect of miniaturizing the foreground.

Don Landis, one of our regular forum members, is the go to guy when it comes to doing longer distance landscape 3D. He has developed some mathematical tables and dual camera bench systems for this. My specialty is underwater 3D video.

Thanks for the useful info Secondphase.

Brian