Why haven't stereo cameras become popular

[Doug Sclar]

I remember back in junior high school looking at stereo topographical maps, and I know there were a fair number of stereo photographic items back in the olden days. In fact I remember using those little plastic stereo slide viewers with the little round discs full of images when I was a kid, but those were mainly considered toys, and most of the images were cartoons and the liike. I do remember some 'real' stereo photos were around for those, but that was a long time ago. Are they still out there?

Why are there no mainstream stereo photographic products today? It would seem that since digital cameras are so commonplace today, it would not be too hard to come up with a stereo camera and method of display. I do realize that there have been a few 3D movies and the like, but not too many.

I saw a 3D display panel at the CES a few years back which used little prism style picture elements, and if you stood at the fight focal length you could see pretty convincing 3D without the use of glasses. Has anybody heard of this product being further developed. I believe it was made by Sharp. I have never seen or heard a peep about this since that show, which I think was winter 2000.

[Doug Sclar]

Well, what a small world. Somebody else started a thread today about Viewmasters which I just saw. I guess I should read more before I post.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=39435

[stereoptic]

In fact I remember using those little plastic stereo slide viewers with the little round discs full of images when I was a kid, but those were mainly considered toys, and most of the images were cartoons and the liike. I do remember some 'real' stereo photos were around for those, but that was a long time ago. Are they still out there?.

WOW # viewmaster threads in one day!

Yeah, Doug, this is Viewmaster is 65th Anniversary! Ever since the late 60's, and more so in the 70's through the 90's these were regarded as many as toys. But before that they were sold mostly in camera shops, or they had there own display in many department stores. They were sold at many souvenir shops at various landmarks and attractions through the country. I'll bet if you ask your grandparents or parents, you'll find that they have a box squirreled away somewhere. On the older reels, before Sawyers was bought by GAF, the photos were printed on Kodachrome film. GAF switched over to Ektachrome in the mid 60's. The Kodachrome reels still retain magnificent color today! Nice rich colors and texture. It's like having a "reel" time machine looking at these old pictures of a much simpler America, and the rest of the world for that matter.

There are a few companies that make specialty reels that are first class - reels of Falling Water and other architectural marvels.


do a search on e-bay for Viewmaster, there are thousands of entries! You can still pick up an older viewer with glass lenses (I recommend a Model E) and some common reels for about the same price of a new CD!

In the past 10 years or so, interest in Viewmaster has increased more than it has since the 60's. Fisher Price is the latest owner after a series a changing hands in the last 30 years. They should be commended for saving it and promoting it more than any other company since Sawyers. Take a look at their website. If you visit Toys R Us, you may notice that they carry a pretty large supply of viewers and reels.

As to why stereo photography is not more popular, I believe that it is too technical. Many attempts have come and gone in the past few years without much success. People don't want to be bothered having to find a viewer, you get less pictures per roll of film (because each shot is two pictures - a left and a right).

There are some decent stereo cameras in production today. Actually if you have a tripod, you can take some simple stereo pictures with any camera. First, pick a stationary object and snap a picture. Then move the camera about 4 inches to the right and take another shot. If you are using a digital camera, print them out side by side. You can buy a small hand held "longette" viewer, similar to the lens construction of those old stereoscopes, but as small as a pair of glasses without the stems and view the pair that way. Or you can free-view (like one of those Magic Eyes).

I don't know what you saw at CES, but there are some very good lenticular manufacturers out there today (An example of a lenticular is the Rolling Stones Satanic Majesties Request album cover). Maybe you saw a product by depthography? (http://www.depthography.com/timesqu.html)
Here are a few links:

3d stereo (http://www.3dstereo.com) - Dalia has hundreds of new and old items, cameras, lenticulars, you name it.

Berzin photography products (http://www.berezin.com/3d/) - another great selection

ViewMaster resource (http://www.vmresource.com/) - excellent information here

Offical Viewmaster page (http://www.fisher-price.com/US/view-master/default_flash.asp)

More Viewmaster info (http://www.cinti.net/~vmmasell/)

I've got dozens more!

[Doug Sclar]

Interesting, still lots of stuff out there. I do remember the tourist places had these. I think I saw some 3d shots of Niagra Falls once.

This unit I saw was made by Sharp, I think, but there was no literature and not product release time. I think this was just some r&d experiment that was on display. I can't tell you how many products I've seen at shows that never made market. I desperately wanted a Technics 1500 model that went 30ips and had pro set up features. Well I saw one at the AES show in the late 70's and still have the literature for it, but it never was released.

[Mal]

As to why stereo photography is not more popular, I believe that it is too technical. Many attempts have come and gone in the past few years without much success. People don't want to be bothered having to find a viewer, you get less pictures per roll of film (because each shot is two pictures - a left and a right).
For years I had to use the "one camera-two shots" method - great quality images but not ideal for taking action pictures!

I bought the Loreo 3-D lens splitter a couple of years back which means I can now take action pics but unfortunately the optics are pretty poor - you get what you pay for I guess. Anyway, as I'm sure you already know, with a lens splitter you get the same number of pictures per roll as with a normal lens. Unfortunately this also means you get lower resolution pics - you win some you lose some!

Can you recommend a decent quality lens splitter for a 35mm camera? Didn't Leica make one years ago - the "Stereoly" or something?

:)

[Doug Sclar]

There are some decent stereo cameras in production today. Actually if you have a tripod, you can take some simple stereo pictures with any camera. First, pick a stationary object and snap a picture. Then move the camera about 4 inches to the right and take another shot. If you are using a digital camera, print them out side by side. You can buy a small hand held "longette" viewer, similar to the lens construction of those old stereoscopes, but as small as a pair of glasses without the stems and view the pair that way. Or you can free-view (like one of those Magic Eyes).



Interesting about the 4 inches. Obviously that is about the spread of human eyes, but I am thinking about the audio analogy. Many stereo recordings are made with mics close together, as are human ears, but you can get interesting results with a pair of mics spread much farther. I'm guessing that spreading the camera shots farther would not yield good results.

[Mal]

Interesting about the 4 inches. Obviously that is about the spread of human eyes, but I am thinking about the audio analogy. Many stereo recordings are made with mics close together, as are human ears, but you can get interesting results with a pair of mics spread much farther. I'm guessing that spreading the camera shots farther would not yield good results.If you want to record the same parallax as the human eyes see then you need more like 2 1/2 inches between the camera lenses.

Increasing the distance between the lenses creates what is know as a "hyper-stereo" image. This is useful if you are taking an image of something a considerable distance away. With our 2 1/2 inch separation we can only really detect parallax (and therefore see in 3D) between objects within a few tens of meters of us. If you want to see something far away in 3D you need more separation between your lenses.

A great example of hyper-stereo is when you are taking images from an aeroplane - if you take one image of the clouds, wait 10 seconds and then take a second image you are effectively taking a stereo pair with a separation of a few hundred meters! This results in a fantastic 3D picture of the clouds. It works really well on islands from the air too - the 3D image you get is like looking at a perfect miniature model of the island right infront of your face.

Make sure you get a window seat next time you fly and try a few experiments...

:)

[stereoptic]

Can you recommend a decent quality lens splitter for a 35mm camera? Didn't Leica make one years ago - the "Stereoly" or something?
:)

Malc - I've never used one, so I can't really recommend one. Leica did make a beam splitter, I think it is called the Stereoly; the ones I've seen are pretty expensive. I could dig upa few more websites tomorrow, I know that I have one that specializes in camera accessories.

[stereoptic]

If you want to record the same parallax as the human eyes see then you need more like 2 1/2 inches between the camera lenses.:)

You're correct, Malc. I knew the 4 inches wasn't right when I typed it!

Cool idea about the macro cloud images! There are some amazing macro stereo shots. Once you get past the "dollhouse" view, you can really see some remarkable details. I've seen some wiiide two camera shots that are incredible. Remote controlled shutters are required!

[Doug Sclar]

If you want to record the same parallax as the human eyes see then you need more like 2 1/2 inches between the camera lenses.

Increasing the distance between the lenses creates what is know as a "hyper-stereo" image. This is useful if you are taking an image of something a considerable distance away. With our 2 1/2 inch separation we can only really detect parallax (and therefore see in 3D) between objects within a few tens of meters of us. If you want to see something far away in 3D you need more separation between your lenses.

A great example of hyper-stereo is when you are taking images from an aeroplane - if you take one image of the clouds, wait 10 seconds and then take a second image you are effectively taking a stereo pair with a separation of a few hundred meters! This results in a fantastic 3D picture of the clouds. It works really well on islands from the air too - the 3D image you get is like looking at a perfect miniature model of the island right infront of your face.

Make sure you get a window seat next time you fly and try a few experiments...

:)
Malc,

I haven't experimented with stereo, but over the last few years have taken hundreds of shots from airplane windows. I always try to sit by a window, and hope it is clean. I often listen to radio and have a map so I can chart my course and generally have good luck doing so. With a little photoshop you can make these shots pretty revealing and cut through a lot of the haze. I'm using my Sony 707 w/5mp and the resolution shocks me. I want to get a higher res cam eventually to continue with these shots. I'd love to try to look at some of this stuff in stereo. Often I've taken repeated shots so I might have some potential for that.

Has anybody tried using the hi res eye phones that have been out for a while. I had a pair a few years back but the resolution was pretty low so I gave them away. But those might be a great way to look at stereo photos if you could feed each image separately. Most of those use a mono video image, of course.

This is exciting me. Maybe we're still a few years away from this.