The setup is simple, three B/W cameras are set up with Red, Green, and Blue filters. Fired simultaneously each photograph requires that these three negatives be processed into slides. Then to view the image the slides are placed in three separate stacked projectors, each with the colored filter of the relevant slide. Voila; 'instant' color photographs!
-- WcW, Jun 02 2009

One of the Earliest Color Pictures (c 1900) http://upload.wikim...mpose-Alim_Khan.jpg
Uses this method -- digitally recomposited [cowtamer, Jun 04 2009]

A trichroic prism assembly http://en.wikipedia...:Dichroic-prism.svg
Splits an image into its rgb components, could be (and I assume is) used for this. [mitxela, Jun 05 2009]

Is the result supposed to be some variant of a stereoscopic image? My assumption from reading this is that you intend the three images to be identical copies of one photograph, which wouldn't happen if you're using multiple cameras simultaneously. When the three different filtered pictures are overlayed, the result will be similar to an anaglyphic (red/blue) image from older 3D films.
-- fridge duck, Jun 02 2009


Using three cameras mounted together firing at the same focal point should give images with minimal distortion. Anagyphs use separated cameras with divergent focal points to produce the differences of stereoscopic vision. If you didn't exaggerate the distortion images from closely positioned cameras capturing a distant object would have non detectable distortion.
-- WcW, Jun 02 2009


I may have misunderstood something here. But if not, this was baked in the earliest days of photography, when the first full-colour images were produced in exactly this way.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 02 2009


the eyes of most people enable them to have stereoscopic vision, and they have the same focal point, while the lenses are ~6cm apart....

But using the same setup that 3LCD projectors use, one could take 3 BW images through the same lens.

I am not sure about the reasons for the idea, though - color photography works well, and whether you process three images, or one image three times as long... ?
-- loonquawl, Jun 02 2009


Thomas Sutton took a photograph of a tartan ribbon in this manner a hundred and forty eight years ago.
-- nineteenthly, Jun 02 2009


So, a lost technique promoted again.
-- WcW, Jun 02 2009


//Thomas Sutton took a photograph of a tartan ribbon in this manner a hundred and forty eight years ago.//

It's true that he took the picture, but it was taken with the same camera, after having switched between the different filters after each exposure.
-- fridge duck, Jun 04 2009


If he'd used different cameras the images wouldn't've been congruent. A rotating filter made of three colours would work better.
-- nineteenthly, Jun 04 2009


the differences between the three images would be minimal if the three cameras were mounted to one another and aimed and focused at objects that were at a distance. I suspect that there would be minimal distortion abound the edges of the image if the cameras were capturing a scene from fifty or sixty feet away.
-- WcW, Jun 04 2009


Anything with a parallax under one minute of arc should be OK.
-- nineteenthly, Jun 04 2009


It's a fun idea, and I always like to put one over on "the man" whenever possible. You would certainly have to use one lens with prisma or a very high speed gimbled mirror (like laser light shows and DLP's), but totally possible. Basically you have come up with a way to create color separations.
-- mhuppertz, Aug 22 2010


I didn't say that we would have realism. I promised rich deep color.
-- WcW, Aug 23 2010



random, halfbakery