Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Automatic Synchronization

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Automatic Synchronization

 
 
Jeff R.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2009
Clo-Clo wrote:
> Any simple way to synchronize 2 or more (preferably identical) digital
> cameras?
>
> Synchronization of the order of 0,1 sec. or better?
>
> The cameras can be cheap and simple (point'n'shoot) or more advanced
> (DSLR).
>
> I will consider as I said the simplest solution.
>
> Thanks.


Simplest solution:
http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/stereo-rig.jpg

1) both thumbs under rail
2) right index finger on right shutter button
3) left index finger on left shutter button
4) sque-e-e-e-eze

Works for me.
http://www.mendosus.com/armidale/st-...a-ora-mnts.jpg

--
Jeff R.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jeff R.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2009
Clo-Clo wrote:
> "Jeff R." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> Simplest solution:
>> http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/stereo-rig.jpg
>>
>> 1) both thumbs under rail
>> 2) right index finger on right shutter button
>> 3) left index finger on left shutter button
>> 4) sque-e-e-e-eze
>>
>> Works for me.

>
>> http://www.mendosus.com/armidale/st-...a-ora-mnts.jpg

>
> Thanks but I was thinking about something that could be remote
> controlled, my arms are too short, furthermore I am not too sure
> about the synchronization within a small fraction of a second.


Fair enough the "remote" aspect... but
I've found the synch to be good enough to capture balls in flight.
(basketballs, usually - not game to try it for cricket)

>
> Also what do you do with your stereo pictures?


(without wishing to sound sarcastic)
Look at 'em!

> Have you rigged together an equally ingenious stereoscope?


Yes, for parallel pairs (which my sample above is not), but I usually
distribute my pix via the web, cross-eyed free-viewing is far superior.
Easier for me, at my age, too.

I played with red/blue anaglyphs for a while (very successful) but
cross-eyed is superior because it requires no special hardware and it
retains the colour.

Yes - it requires training in the technique, but pfffttt to that.


>
> Finally why the latin about Constantin Huygens, Chris's Dad I believe?


Dunno about that - I just thought that "mendosus" is an extraordinarily
appropriate name for a website - any website, and any latin diatribe would
make a nice splash page.

--
Jeff R.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jeff R.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2009
Clo-Clo wrote:
> "Jeff R." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> Simplest solution:
>> http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/stereo-rig.jpg
>>
>> 1) both thumbs under rail
>> 2) right index finger on right shutter button
>> 3) left index finger on left shutter button
>> 4) sque-e-e-e-eze
>>
>> Works for me.

>
>> http://www.mendosus.com/armidale/st-...a-ora-mnts.jpg

>
> Thanks but I was thinking about something that could be remote
> controlled, my arms are too short, furthermore I am not too sure
> about the synchronization within a small fraction of a second.


Fair enough the "remote" aspect... but
I've found the synch to be good enough to capture balls in flight.
(basketballs, usually - not game to try it for cricket)

>
> Also what do you do with your stereo pictures?


(without wishing to sound sarcastic)
Look at 'em!

> Have you rigged together an equally ingenious stereoscope?


Yes, for parallel pairs (which my sample above is not), but I usually
distribute my pix via the web, cross-eyed free-viewing is far superior.
Easier for me, at my age, too.

I played with red/blue anaglyphs for a while (very successful) but
cross-eyed is superior because it requires no special hardware and it
retains the colour.

Yes - it requires training in the technique, but pfffttt to that.


>
> Finally why the latin about Constantin Huygens, Chris's Dad I believe?


Dunno about that - I just thought that "mendosus" is an extraordinarily
appropriate name for a website - any website, and any latin diatribe would
make a nice splash page.

--
Jeff R.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeff R.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2009
Clo-Clo wrote:
> "Jeff R." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> Simplest solution:
>> http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/stereo-rig.jpg
>>
>> 1) both thumbs under rail
>> 2) right index finger on right shutter button
>> 3) left index finger on left shutter button
>> 4) sque-e-e-e-eze
>>
>> Works for me.

>
>> http://www.mendosus.com/armidale/st-...a-ora-mnts.jpg

>
> Thanks but I was thinking about something that could be remote
> controlled, my arms are too short, furthermore I am not too sure
> about the synchronization within a small fraction of a second.


Fair enough the "remote" aspect... but
I've found the synch to be good enough to capture balls in flight.
(basketballs, usually - not game to try it for cricket)

>
> Also what do you do with your stereo pictures?


(without wishing to sound sarcastic)
Look at 'em!

> Have you rigged together an equally ingenious stereoscope?


Yes, for parallel pairs (which my sample above is not), but I usually
distribute my pix via the web, cross-eyed free-viewing is far superior.
Easier for me, at my age, too.

I played with red/blue anaglyphs for a while (very successful) but
cross-eyed is superior because it requires no special hardware and it
retains the colour.

Yes - it requires training in the technique, but pfffttt to that.


>
> Finally why the latin about Constantin Huygens, Chris's Dad I believe?


Dunno about that - I just thought that "mendosus" is an extraordinarily
appropriate name for a website - any website, and any latin diatribe would
make a nice splash page.

--
Jeff R.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeff R.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2009
Jeff R. wrote:

!!!!

sorry 'bout multiple post.

browser hiccups!

JR
 
Reply With Quote
 
Allodoxaphobia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2009
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:08:04 +1000, Jeff R. wrote:
> Clo-Clo wrote:
>> "Jeff R." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

>
>> Have you rigged together an equally ingenious stereoscope?

>
> Yes, for parallel pairs (which my sample above is not), but I usually
> distribute my pix via the web, cross-eyed free-viewing is far superior.
> Easier for me, at my age, too.


The better technique is to view them wall-eyed, IMO. Maybe that's why
yours did not look 'dramatic' enough -- they were switched
left-to-right? Or, maybe it was the artifacts introduced by sharpening
and compression -- which would be different in each and which would be
more apparent in stereo viewing.

Hint: Viewing them in Firefox with it's image resizing as you resize
the window helps get the centers of the pictures closer to a reasonable
range that can be accommodated by your IPD.

I first learned how to do unaided stereo viewing when I worked one
Summer as a go-fer for a surveyor in the 'bad lands' of western
Colorado's oil shale country (circa 1966). He would lay out two
USGS aerial photographs on the hood of the truck and go wall-eyed to see
the terrain features. It's Way Less head-achy for me than cross-eyed.

Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
* Killfiling google & XXXXbanter.com: jonz.net/ng.htm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeff R.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2009
Allodoxaphobia wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:08:04 +1000, Jeff R. wrote:
>> Clo-Clo wrote:
>>> "Jeff R." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

>>
>>> Have you rigged together an equally ingenious stereoscope?

>>
>> Yes, for parallel pairs (which my sample above is not), but I usually
>> distribute my pix via the web, cross-eyed free-viewing is far
>> superior. Easier for me, at my age, too.

>
> The better technique is to view them wall-eyed, IMO. Maybe that's why
> yours did not look 'dramatic' enough -- they were switched
> left-to-right?


Sighhhh...

By "wall-eyed" I presume you mean parallel. This was the way I learnt to
view stereo pix, and the only way I viewed them for decades. It was the
decreasing accommodation of my eyes that led to me to adopting cross-eyed
instead. Then I discovered the vast superiority of the method - largely
because the images can be huge.

I now reserve parallel (or "wall-eyed" if you like) for viewing
transparencies through a viewer.

>... Or, maybe it was the artifacts introduced by
> sharpening and compression -- which would be different in each and
> which would be more apparent in stereo viewing.


....and did you notice how these artifacts cancel out when the two images
combine?

The stereo effect in my sample is quite dramatic. I Can count at least
seven distinct planes of interest. If you cannot see them, or they seem
"backwards" then....


> Hint: Viewing them in Firefox with it's image resizing as you resize
> the window helps get the centers of the pictures closer to a
> reasonable range that can be accommodated by your IPD.


Sigghhh again. It has 'nowt to do with IPD when viewing cross-eyed. If
viewing parallel then the images must be tiny - one way or another.


> I first learned how to do unaided stereo viewing when I worked one
> Summer as a go-fer for a surveyor in the 'bad lands' of western
> Colorado's oil shale country (circa 1966). He would lay out two
> USGS aerial photographs on the hood of the truck and go wall-eyed to
> see the terrain features. It's Way Less head-achy for me than
> cross-eyed.


Either he stood back a long way or he was viewing them cross-eyed. Your
hesitation in identifying my example as cross-eyed seems to confirm that
suggestion.

> Jonesy



--
Jeff R.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
synchronization Firefox 0 04-12-2005 03:44 PM
System Time synchronization arcvonz ASP .Net 2 08-23-2004 10:17 PM
Automatic build process + automatic NuNit (2 in 1 solution) ASP .Net 1 06-29-2004 04:15 PM
More synchronization problems Simon VHDL 1 01-09-2004 04:20 PM
Flip Flop Synchronization John VHDL 3 01-05-2004 05:58 PM



Advertisments