It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: wmd_2008
... Typical of people like yourself who post if any poster looks like they may know something about the subject and doesn't agree with the OP then they are only posting to boost their ego WRONG we post to stop other members being misled.
originally posted by: shefskitchen
a reply to: wmd_2008
I know my bloggie has no entertainment value, due to the the problems you have brought to light. You know that due to it's close interoccular distance (stereographer enough for you?), that ghosting is created in far objects. Terrible for entertainment purposes.
Sensor size makes it uncomfortable to watch. Doesn't take away data. Ghosting makes it uncomfortable to watch. Doesn't mean math can't revert the shot error (there's a plugin for that).
It does have scientific value. Object size, interoccular distance, and angle of incidence were used to calculate the objects' approxiamte size, distance and speed. Of course, the investigator also used my estimate (which wasn't too far off).
Sorry for assuming you were a professional at first. It became blatantly apparent, that you don't know what you're talking about. Now, painfully so.
Stop providing us non-technical reviews of consumer gear as they pertain to entertainment value, or end user comfortability. Because that's what you are: an end user consumer. An armchair quarterback. One that can't do, therefore tries to teach.
Show me some math, where a 32 mm interocular distance at 5 degrees incidence negates binocular ranging. Tell me how a fixed 43mm lense at a fixed f 1.8 distorts and how it can be mathematically reversed. You won't. It will be more "Hey look at me!!!" blow-hard cowardice. This is the 3rd time I'm asking you for fact and not opinion.
originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE
You have quite a low threshold for proof X , a couple of dots on a black background
originally posted by: shefskitchen
a reply to: wmd_2008
It does have scientific value. Object size, interoccular distance, and angle of incidence were used to calculate the objects' approxiamte size, distance and speed. Of course, the investigator also used my estimate (which wasn't too far off).
Sorry for assuming you were a professional at first. It became blatantly apparent, that you don't know what you're talking about. Now, painfully so.
Stop providing us non-technical reviews of consumer gear as they pertain to entertainment value, or end user comfortability. Because that's what you are: an end user consumer. An armchair quarterback. One that can't do, therefore tries to teach.
Show me some math, where a 32 mm interocular distance at 5 degrees incidence negates binocular ranging. Tell me how a fixed 43mm lense at a fixed f 1.8 distorts and how it can be mathematically reversed. You won't. It will be more "Hey look at me!!!" blow-hard cowardice. This is the 3rd time I'm asking you for fact and not opinion.
The interaxial distance of the two lens at the back of the 3D Bloggie is about 20 millimeters or about 0.78 inches which should actually be Ok for the sensor size (1/4 type CMOS sensor) that this portable 3D camcorder uses, after all it is made more for close-up photos and videos. The recommended distance by Sony between the camera and the subject of approximately 1.2 m to 5.0 m (approximately 3 feet 11 1/4 inches to 16 feet 4 7/8 inches)
originally posted by: Raxusillian
a reply to: wmd_2008
Wow you're an ass who devalues the community. Go drag down another community.