[MF3D.FORUM:163] Re: Hello, I am a new member and glad tobehere! STUART JOHNSON

["Bill Glickman" <bglick@xxxxxxxx>]

Yes, Velvia is not made for skin tones, or very bright white subjects...its
color palette is heavily shifted towards green.  The perfect compliment to
Velvia for these items is Provia F, specially for 3d work, since it's the
highest grain film made.  Considering Provia F can easily be pushed two full
stops, you have the advantage of being able to shoot at 400 ISO with no
noticeable grain at 4x magnification.  From my limited experience in 3d, I
would say this is very useful considering the detrimental effects a slight
blur has to a 3d scene.  Soon I will be using Provia for 3d shots with an
Mamiya 7 and a slide bar.  Just remember, you have to push the entire roll!

Bill


>
> >    Yes, I am hoping that Zeiss does the job as I do not have this luxury
in
> >purchasing used
> >lenses at this time...
>
>   Are you going with fairly new lenses or old
> chrome ones?
>
>   See my web page for an idea of the FL variation
> I found with late 50's Ricoh lenses:
> http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/lenstest.html
> http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/twin225.html
>
>
> >    Thanks for the input on the films!  I have also been leaning towards
the
> >Velvia due to
> >the many images in the recent books and magazines shooting with this
film.
>
>   Works well for many things. But not usually for
> people and not usually for realistic colours.
>
>   This photo here was done with my SR225 homebuilt
> camera using Velvia. It has a bit of that ruddy (sp?)
> skin look that you get with Velvia:
> http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/gallery/EmBethRL.jpg
>
> >    Until I actually receive these cameras I cannot give you the stereo
> >base. However, it
> >    does appear that I will be a lot better off with it versus the other
> >rigs that put the lenses farther apart.
>
>   Okay.
>
>   I recall looking at some Pop Photo MF camera
> comparison and seeing that the Hasselblads are about
> the narrowest. Don't know how the motordrive affects
> that though.
>
> >   I was hoping to print these in the 4x6 size to crop and creat the 3.5
x 7
> >or 4 x 7 sized print stereo's.
> >    Have you done this?  Is this acceptable for prints?  Also, what would
> >the ideal Achromats be for
> >    viewing these?  Also, If I went with slides, what achromats would
> >"enlarge" them for viewing in a
> >    box style viewer?
>
>   If you have the infinity spacing wider than your
> eyes you will need to diverge to view the stereo
> pair. Old stereoscopes have prism built into the
> lenses to allow you to view images about 3.5" apart.
> But it does cause colour fringes on the high contrast
> edges unless you have an achromatic stereoscope.
>
>   Another way to view wide images is with a Wheatstone
> viewer. Daniel Greenhouse built such a viewer for 6x7
> slides. See it on Robert Thorpe's MF viewer gallery:
> http://www.skep.com/3d/gallery.htm
>
>   Also follow the link to Stephen Kearney's web page
> and see his Wheatstone viewer for 4x5 slides.
>
>   And then there is the over/under ViewMagic approach.
> I believe RMM sells them. (no lenses so no distortion,
> but also not too much magnification). Other options
> include cross-eye freeviewing them and Alan Lewis's
> Free-viewer's Assistant.
>
>   I haven't done prints much so someone else will have
> to help you there.
>
>   Now 6x6 slides, those I have done. My current viewer
> has 40mm diameter by 84mm FL achromats. It formerly had
> 36x82's. The 40x84's aren't available any more but I believe
> Edmund Scientific still sells the the 36x82's (about $25
> or $30 each I think). These are surplus lenses. They also
> sell some commercial grade AR coated 40x80's that John
> Bercovitz and Steve Spicer used in their MF viewers. See
> the viewer gallery.
>
>   RMM was selling a MF viewer kit for about $130. But it
> is currently out of stock until more lenses are found
> (or the viewer redesigned for different lenses).
>
>   So and 35 to 45mm diamter by 75-90mm FL achromats will
> likely work okay. Some will be better than others. You
> can also consider double achromats (at higher cost). Then
> you need four 35-45mm dia by 150-ish mm achromats. With
> four air-glass surfaces you would likely want AR coated
> lenses. Try surplusshack.com or Paul Rini
> http://www.crbest.com/proptics/
>
>   Another idea I've always liked is to use two 4 power
> loupes for 6x6. More pricey but you can get individual
> eye focusing that way. Construction ranges from 2 element
> and up. Price from $50 (maybe) to $200 per eye.
> Check out B&H loupe page for some ideas:
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/photo/loupes/navigation.html
>
> ---
>
>   I haven't done much with prints but I believe you can't
> match a back lit slide viewed in a good viewer. The
> contrast range and clarity just isn't available from
> a print. So I'd vote for slides.
>
> Hope this helps - Greg
>