h a l f b a k e r yGo ahead. Stick a fork in it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Dual-film camera
Simultaneously photograph something on two separate rolls of film | |
A 35mm camera with two lenses that would photograph an
image on two separate rolls of film. The idea behind this would
be that you could then take a B&W photo and a color photo
at the same time, or use two different film speeds, or color
film and infrared -- whatever.
It would be best if
there was flexibility in the
aparature/shutter speed of the two lenses. You should be
able to adjust both independently for each lens, but also be
able to slave one or both on the second lens to that of the
first lens. Focusing should be done with one lens, and have
the second lens mirror the adjustments.
Some other web page about the Nimslo camera.
http://www.rit.edu/...ph/text-nimslo.html
Just typing 'Nimslo' into Google gives lots of hits... [StarChaser, Jul 07 2001, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Stero photography
http://www.starosta...showcase/igear.html
Bolt two Pentax KXes together, with a single shutter release, and then take pictures of... [hippo, Jul 07 2001, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Stereo photography - nudes
http://www.starosta...owcase/inude09.html
I have to confess that I find all those 'Magic Eye' pictures very easy - So this is *really* easy to see... [hippo, Jul 07 2001, last modified Oct 21 2004]
The Multi Lens Camera
http://www.angelfir...lav/satcameras.html
w00t! [StarChaser, Jul 07 2001, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Stereo Brick (dual-film camera)
http://groups.msn.c...howPhoto&PhotoID=79
Pair of Argus C3 "Brick" cameras mounted together to take stereo pictures; perhaps one could instead load B&W film in one and color in the other. [whlanteigne, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Now this sounds like fun. Could be done with a single lens and a splitter but your lens would need a whopping f-stop to get enough light for both rolls of film. Your way is better. |
|
| |
Serious photography is not my long suit but I'm fascinated by exotic cameras and the like. There's a hint of stereopticon application here that is really quite appealing. |
|
| |
The Military: That is how stereopticon pictures were made, way back when...<net.rummage> Hey, Fuji is making a disposable stereopticon camera now...Only in Japan, apparently. <notices date on doc.> Oops, 'now' is 1995...Fujifilm.com's website doesn't have anything I could find, so I emailed them. |
|
| |
Furrfu. I can't find ANY of the old cameras. Just the viewers, and things like the four-lensed ones from the 80's. |
|
| |
Dog Ed: Yes, I had originally been thinking of it with one
lens, split somehow, but then realized that you couldn't
use two very different types/speeds of film since the
exposure settings would then end up identical for each
roll. |
|
| |
Rods Tiger: The video/still setup sounds pretty clever.
The only advantages that this idea would have over the
traditional way you mention is that the exposure settings
could be linked if desired, and it would probably yield a
slightly more compact unit overall. But depending on the
usage of the device, these might not be very big
advantages at all. |
|
| |
The second camera you're talking about is the 'four lensed' one I mentioned. The first didn't do 3d, it just did color of a sort. <The footage of the trim ring dropping from the Saturn V that is so often used for a rocket launch was made with this type of movie camera.> |
|
| |
Your link is tango-uniform, Rods. Try mine... |
|
| |
Hmm. Found another camera that has four lenses in a square, that takes four shots sequentially, over a second, when the button is pressed. And another Fuji one that has EIGHT. |
|
| |
Here's mention of the 'Meopta Stereo 35', "This camera takes 35mm film, and instantaneously creates two 12x13mm images for stereo use. Apparently these are designed for Viewmaster use. The camera itself is a bit on the chintzy side". |
|
| |
Aha! The original idea, baked, plus PeterSealy's addition as a side dish.
"The Multi Lens Camera
This camera has four lenses each of which focusses light on its own film roll. Each of these lens assemblies are identical except for the fact that they have different filters. One has a Red Filter, One has a Green, one has a Blue filter, and one has a Infra Red Filter. We can thus take photographs of exactly the same area on the ground in four different bands. " |
|
| |
I do the same thing sometimes, just so much a habit to put a period at the end of something when you're finished typing. |
|
| |
Those 'magic eye' things have only ever managed to give me a headache. I've never managed to see a picture in them, even with all the tips...Starosta's website has some neat things... |
|
| |
StarChaser: That last camera you spoke of sounds close to
the idea... do you have a link for it, or did I just miss it on
the Nimslo page (which sounds like a pretty fun camera,
btw) that you linked to? |
|
| |
Nope, the link wasn't from there. I found it while looking for other things, but got distracted and forgot to put up a link. Did now, though... |
|
| |
One idea I had awhile ago was to have a camera which would photograph two perfectly-registered pictures simultaneously using a 11%-silvered mirror. This would have two useful effects: |
|
| |
-1- If the exposure setting for the camera were set anywhere near correct, one of the pictures would be within 1.5 f-stops of proper exposure. While a firm normally has about a +/- 1.5 f-stop latitude, this camera would expand that lattitude to +/- 3 f-stops, greatly improving the likelihood of getting a good shot. |
|
| |
-2- When shooting scenes which have very light and very dark areas, if the exposure of the camera was set reasonably well, the light areas would show up well in the negative that got 11% of the light while the dark areas would show up well in the negative that got 88% of the light. It would then be possible to photographically combine the two negatives to yield a lower-contrast picture which shows all parts of the scene well. |
|
| |
While the mirror would reduce slightly the amount of light reaching the primary film, the reduction would be quite slight (less than 1/6 f-stop) and should not pose any problem whatsoever. |
|
| |
No really - if you do a Google search for "stereoscopic pentax" it's the first link to come up. It wasn't in my Favourites list, honest. |
|
| |
Baked in 1930s, again in 1960s. |
|
| |
Original Technicolor process was two strips of B&W movie film exposed simultaneously with perfect registration via filtered beamsplitter behind lens. Evolved into 3-strip process with two strips in "bi-pack" on one side (front strip was filter for back layer). |
|
| |
In early 60s, Disney reengineered a few 3-strip cameras into 2-strip cameras with a didymium (sp?) coated splitter that reflected only the narrow color of sodium emission lighting. Actors were shot in front of a white screen illuminated by this sodium light. This light exposed a strip of special monochrome film stock; used for "sodium-screen" process photography in Mary Poppins. The monochrome stock provided the matte element for the color footage to be superimposed over animated backgrounds. |
|
| |
I think in the 1980s, someone in Hollywood was messing with the same technique but with infrared or UV light. This may not have panned out because of the difference in focal points between visible light and IR/UV. |
|
| |
Interesting. How did they do the color, though, if the film was still black and white? |
|
| |
Never did get an answer from Fuji... |
|
| |
I can use my PC's Photo Editor to scan a color photograph and file or print the image in either color or black & white. I don't see the advantage of having the same image on both color and b & w film, since I can have my color pictures printed as b & w. However, I think it would be possible to attach two cheap 35mm "point and shoot" cameras together (duct tape or epoxy?) and get the desired result, just load one with color and the other with b & w film... if one wanted to get tricky, it wouldn't be difficult to cobble together some kind of bracket using the tripod mount socket on the bottoms of the camera bodies. To synchronize the shutters, use biometrics and wetware (human hands and brain). One can find used cheap plastic fixed-focus 35mm cameras at thrift stores, flea markets, and eBay, usually for $1 or so... |
|
| |
//Supercat - those new Kodak 'Zoom' films - all they are (apart from a very modern C41 formulation) are films with a usefully increased latitude. They'd benefit from being used here, in a splitter mirror system.// |
|
| |
Indeed. If the films have a +/-3 f-stop latitude, then using a 1.53% silvered mirror would generate two pictures 6 f-stops apart, for a net latitude of +/- 6 f-stops. This would allow shooting a scene whose exposure readings varied from f2.8 to f22 all simultaneously while having detail in the brightest and dimmest parts of the frame. That would be pretty well remarkable. |
|
| |
etmthree: //Baked in 1930s, again in 1960s.// |
|
| |
Same mechanical concept; different utilization. You do bring up a good point, though, which is that there is an enormous difference in usability between a pair of images taken through the same lens versus a pair of images taken through adjacent lenses. Had Mary Poppins tried to use two adjacent cameras with separate lenses, the matting wouldn't have worked at all. BTW, I didn't know about sodium matting, but it sounds like a clever technique. |
|
| |