On 27-10-2014 15:34, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.10.2014 16:12, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 26-10-2014 14:19, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 26.10.2014 10:22, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>> On 26-10-2014 9:54, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> On 26/10/2014 08:13, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>>> But, it is the reason why on goggles, the baseline /is/ extended.
>>>>>> Consider also those military stereoscopic viewers. From my own
>>>>>> experience with stereoscopic viewers used for aerial photographs,
>>>>>> extending the baseline makes objects appear like billboards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would that not be more of the "telescopic" effect of the lens's used?
>>>>>
>>>> Hmm... I am not sure how much the lens influences the effect indeed. My
>>>> guts tell me it is the baseline mostly, but then who would rely on his
>>>> guts? :-)
>>>
>>> Actually it is a combination of the telescopic effect of the lens -
>>> which enlarges the viewed objects in the horizontal and vertical - and
>>> the /absence/ of (sufficient) baseline extension - which would emphasize
>>> the depth cues accordingly.
>>>
>>> For instance, in 20x binoculars I think you'd ideally need a baseline of
>>> around 12m; obviously this would make such devices very impractical to
>>> carry around, so that's not done.
>>>
>> ....but which is achieved for instance with aerial photographs used for
>> cartographic photogrammetry, with baselines of hundreds of metres.
>
> ... and probably also far more than 20x zoom, right?

Yes, and I found this: 
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geomatics/satellite-imagery-air-photos/air-photos/about-aerial-photography/9687

which explains it pretty well.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message