To save the eyesight.....why not make a simple wooden viewer, the hand held type, with two close up lens of about +5 to +6 dioptre. Not much use with a monitor,....... but you can print pictures out and mount on card as per Victorian stereo pictures. There's plenty about the viewers on the net to design your own, nothing critical.
Last Edit: Feb 13, 2015 12:27:25 GMT -5 by Stephen
If you try any 3D pictures, try to use the max depth of field, use the smallest aperture and set the focus to the scale marks for the aperture, like using a hyperfocal distance.
3D is an optical illusion, even in real views, and the brain processes out the out of focus foreground, something the camera cannot do.
Really with 3D we have a picture in 2 planes, foreground and background, with the in between depth interpreted by the brain.
This is why Hollywood can "convert" flat films to 3D, they simply mask the foreground and process the two elements to make the foreground float over the background.
The best movie system is Polavision, with polarised pairs, but with light loss. The best with still is the pair of shots as described here, followed by anaglyph, but anaglyph's do not work with all people. Any trace of colour blindness and the idea falls down. This why odd colours are chosen by some inventors, with yellow/magenta causing the least issues.
It always amused me that the best director of the early 1950's burst of 3D Hollywood features was Andre De Toth, who was blind in one eye!!
I have used a variety of Canon digital compacts over the last decade, but currently use a Fujifilm W3 stereo digital camera instead.
I've used this program before, it is great for anaglyphs and allows you to make the different colour combinations. The program will align images for you and let you choose between L-R, R-L, anaglyph and others.
For me, this method is most convenient. Staring crosseyed at my monitor is best!!
Had a very curious experience with a Leica stereo kit a few years ago, a customer brought in one to go to Leica agents in the UK for a quotation to repair the prisms, which were coming unstuck. Our local repair company sent it on after examining, and said it was going to be costly to say the least.
Leica acknowledged receipt of the unit, but time went on and we had to chase the unit up, it had gone to Germany, and then on to Canada, all without sending back a quotation.
Then we had a phone call from Leica saying a sales rep would be bringing the unit back to us, and would we mind the customer being there.....
Three German Leitz staff people turned up that morning, with a small crated item, and a slightly worried customer in case a big bill was about to be presented.
They opened the box to reveal a totally re-built unit, in a new presentation box, all missing accessories replaced, and a letter from Leitz explaining the rebuild. There was a certificate as well, and new instructions......and no bill at all....
The senior Leitz executive explained the unit was the first stereo unit ever sold, and they felt it best re-furbished as new, and if the customer wanted to sell the unit could they have the first option? It was later sold to them and is in the museum, I believe, at Wetzlar.
Our boss was not best pleased to loose any profit on the "repair", but we had a happy customer. Stephen.
Also I have a curious piece of Pentagon gear, it was sold as a bellows sub rack, two rails with an adaptor to which the bellows or camera was screwed. Bit it has no rack, and is therefore of limited use as a sub rack.
But then I noticed the length equals the average eye to eye distance, and after a bit of research found that Dresden had intended it as a way of making stereo shots as well.
You placed it sideways on the tripod, and moved the camera to the left end, took a shot, and then moved the camera to the right to take the second shot.
Personally I do not like to do shots one after the other, and used two LTL Practicas with a dual release. It minimises the risk of foliage being moved by the breeze etc.
The advice about depth of field came originally from a Victorian article on stereo, shallow depth may lead to the foreground details being both in a blur and difficult to register as stereo, as they remain separate images. If the foreground is in focus the brain sees it as processable and it registers better in 3D. Most advice seems along the same lines from manuals and reference works.
Most of my own experience was the reconstruction of the early 1950's movies and I studied up on the whole system. I have one of the paired lens by Baush and Lomb, which came from a Mitchell 35mm camera used for 3D and the lenses were later converted to use with Vistavision.
Vista was not 3D, just a very great depth of field, and film running sideways! The old 3D lenses were converted to produce one image but with two lenses producing the image, which had astonishing depth of field. However it took hours to set up each shot!..and was only used for special shots. The film "The Battle of the River Plate", used these trick lenses for the ships model work.