Komamura's two-headed Horseman 3D camera
By Ryan Block 
posted Apr 29th 2006 7:44PM
posted Apr 29th 2006 7:44PM
[Via The Online Photographer and Gear Live]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
A lot of comments I have read about 3D shooting betray a lack of knowledge of the process.
1. The lens separation you need depends on the size of what you're shooting and how far away it is. Big and/or far=bigger separation.
2. Too much separation= unviewable shots. Oversimplified rule of thumb: separation NOT TO EXCEED 1/30 distance to subject, and that means nearest part of subject in picture. In general less is more.
3. Each picture (L&R) needs a frame. These two frames should be spaced slightly (1.2mm, in 35mm format) further apart than the lens spacing ("Base"). Old Stereo Realists had two square apertures in the film plane spaced 71.2mm, lens base was 70mm. The two apertures project to coincidence about 7 ft. in front of the camera, nothing in scene should be closer than that. Digital 3D shots can be digitally cropped to the same purpose. Question: does anyone know if the Horseman 3D camera has proper film plane masking?
4. Absolutely simultaneous 3D pairs are absolutely necessary if anything in the scene moves. Slide bar and chacha shots have their uses, but if anything moves in the scene (waterfall,etc.) or you want to shoot by electronic flash, s-b and chacha don't cut it. Too bad some camera company doesn't make a factory 3D digital camera with both sensors slaved off the same computer, and in the same housing, so they are optically aligned and time synchronized.
Two-headed horse-man, half horse all man.
This was done 15 years ago and it flopped then. It won't work now until digital.
Once the analog version is released, it's only a matter of time before someone hacks a digital version.
It's GearLive, not Gear Life.
"It's apparently due get the whole real-world-release treatment this summer"
I don't mean to nag, but these typos are popping up pretty regularly. It detracts from the site's image.
Err, I mean grammatical errors.
*sheepish grin*
It looks like a variation of an old Realist Macro. The Kodak V570 has a similar looking lens face but it is not intended for 3D as the two lenses are of different types. My dream digital version would look like http://briandavidphillips.typepad.com/brian/2006/02/new_stirrings_i.html or somesuch. :-) I would NOT reccommend anyone buy a film based 3D camera at this point as there are just way too many companies now getting out of film. There are digital options . . . cha cha shots or twin rigs and a few folks who sell hacks. I use a twin rig of two Sony V3s with a LANC Shepherd and it works fine. Those with digital SLRs can use a Lorel 3D Lens-in-a-Cap adaptor as well (albeit, the quality isn't as good as a twin rig). Eventually, we should see a true mass market digital 3D rig (not the Pentax Optio which used chacha but a true stereo lens piece of equipment). There is a lot of stuff going on in the 3D world of late http://briandavidphillips.typepad.com/brian/3d_stereophotography_and_photography/index.html so good things are on the horizon.
Uhhh I don't think there will be any hacks or mods done to this camera if it costs anywhere near the same amount that other Horseman cameras cost. It's a professional camera, not a quirky toy.
I am in the camera sales business and a photographer. I am curious about this camera because many physical feathures of it look exactly like a Hasselblad XPan (made by Fuji) The top controls are virtually identical. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images/xpan.jpg
Aw, way to get my hopes up. Here I was expecting a camera that captures the entire surrounding area into a 3D model. Now that would be cool.
As 3D photography goes, this camera suffers from a fixed parallax that less separated than human eyes, making all the photos come out with a bug's-eye view of dimension. A useful 3D camera would consist of two digital cameras that automatically align to the same point and that snap simultaneously. That would allow everything from giant's-eye perspectives of landscapes (it'd be extra cool if there was some wireless control, so you could take stereo shots of thunderheads with a half-mile parallax) to bug's-eye views of flowers(well, as close as you can get the lenses together, anyway).
Loreo makes not only a cheap stero film camera, but also makes a screw on splitter to turn a regular SLR digital into a stereoptic camera http://www.loreo.com
I hate to be the one to inform the ignorant masses....but being a professional amateur, I shoot only film. Why? Because there are NO digitals at reach to anyone, except large studios, the even come close to the resolution of film. True, there are alot of shooters that are compromising quality for convience, but almost all professionals still use film. There is no replacement for it. I think this camera is an awesome device and would definitely consider getting one.
[quote]there are NO digitals at reach to anyone, except large studios, the even come close to the resolution of film.[/quote]
Are you familiar with the Canon 5D and 1DsII? Have you actually tested them against film? Professional photographers are dumping medium format because they have found these two cameras are outresolving it. Photographs are not collections of line pairs. A photocopy can be very sharp, but quite uninformative. A Canon 5D delivers as much information as medium format film at the same ISO, probably because a sensor cell is capable of recording more accurately than the smaller film grain. Here's an article that explains this so that next time you can have a clue: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
For a wedding photographer this could be a nice gimmick tool to add to a wedding photographers camera bag. Like my fish eye lens. I only use it a few times during a wedding but it makes for some unique photos. If it were a digital camera or a lens that I could add to one of my digital slr cameras that would be great.
[quote]I hate to be the one to inform the ignorant masses....but being a professional amateur, I shoot only film. Why? Because there are NO digitals at reach to anyone, except large studios, the even come close to the resolution of film. True, there are alot of shooters that are compromising quality for convience[\quote]
No. Professional photographers are switching to digital because of the increase in quality. Cost and convenience are a bonus. If you are in any doubt about it, read this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
Better still, hire the cameras, pay for the drum scans, and actually do the tests yourself. Then maybe you'll know a fraction of what you would need to "inform the ignorant masses".
I love shooting film.
I have been shooting for 20 some years.
For weddings and parties and such, (which I enjoy shooting) my digital friend spend so much time at the computer when all I do is drop off and pick up.
I also like have the negative backups to my cds.
...Also..about shooting very close macro stereo photos, one very good way to shoot still subject matter is with just one camera and a rail.This allows you to slide the camera over for the second exposure to a position that is much closer than any two camera/lens rig can achieve.