Re: Automatic Synchronization

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jeff R., Apr 21, 2009.

  1. Jeff R.

    Jeff R. Guest

    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-lookout-kia-ora-mnts.jpg

    --
    Jeff R.
     
    Jeff R., Apr 21, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jeff R.

    Jeff R. Guest

    Clo-Clo wrote:
    > "Jeff R." <> 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-lookout-kia-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.
     
    Jeff R., Apr 21, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jeff R.

    Jeff R. Guest

    Clo-Clo wrote:
    > "Jeff R." <> 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-lookout-kia-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.
     
    Jeff R., Apr 21, 2009
    #3
  4. Jeff R.

    Jeff R. Guest

    Clo-Clo wrote:
    > "Jeff R." <> 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-lookout-kia-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.
     
    Jeff R., Apr 21, 2009
    #4
  5. Jeff R.

    Jeff R. Guest

    Jeff R. wrote:

    !!!!

    sorry 'bout multiple post.

    browser hiccups!

    JR
     
    Jeff R., Apr 21, 2009
    #5
  6. On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:08:04 +1000, Jeff R. wrote:
    > Clo-Clo wrote:
    >> "Jeff R." <> 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
     
    Allodoxaphobia, Apr 21, 2009
    #6
  7. Jeff R.

    Jeff R. Guest

    Allodoxaphobia wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:08:04 +1000, Jeff R. wrote:
    >> Clo-Clo wrote:
    >>> "Jeff R." <> 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.
     
    Jeff R., Apr 22, 2009
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guest

    synchronization

    Guest, Apr 12, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    647
    Guest
    Apr 12, 2005
  2. =?Utf-8?B?TWFyZ2E=?=

    synchronization problems

    =?Utf-8?B?TWFyZ2E=?=, Jan 6, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    511
    =?Utf-8?B?TWFyZ2E=?=
    Jan 6, 2006
  3. Rafael
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    395
    Rafael
    Dec 15, 2003
  4. jonico
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    601
    jonico
    Sep 29, 2005
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    536
Loading...

Share This Page