[MF3D.FORUM:537] Re: Slide review....

[Paul Talbot <ptww@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bill Glickman wrote:

>        When looking at his Rolleidoscope, I was amazed that such a well
> machined camera was crafted in the 1930's.

Yes, it is a beaut!  :-)

> However, I could not have
> imagined any optics from the 30's being near as sharp or as high contrast as
> the best of todays modern high end MF optics.  However, when reviewing the
> stereo slides, I was truly amazed how sharp those lenses really were.  The
> lenses were Carl Zeiss lenses, the rolls royce of lenses.  Some of the shots
> I felt were on par with some of the best MF lenses I have seen today,
> including Mamiya and Rollei.  I am sure these chromes would not withstand
> the enlargement capability of todays MF lenses, but that is not an issue
> shooting stereo pairs.  It's quite a tribute to a camera maker whos 70 year
> old product is on par with some of the best of what is offered today...

"On par" for our purposes, of course.  I think you hit the old
nail on the head with the observation about enlargements.  From
what I understand from conversations with Don Lopp and others,
these old lenses are good enough to deliver as much resolution
and sharpness as our eyes can pick up viewing MF stereo with
normal viewers.  I'm glad Bill was able to see that for himself,
after all the times he had told me it would hardly be worth
shooting
photos with the likes of Sputniks and Rolleidoscops!  :-)

>       I also have been highly motivated to spend more of my photography time
> shooting 3d.  Paul is a humble guy, but trust me, he has some breathtaking
> shots.  I hope others get to experience some his "best of".

Well, those who have seen my shots in the MF Expo and the MF
Folio II are bound to be thoroughly befuddled by Bill's comment.
Let me just say that most of what I had available to send around
before was mostly pretty raw stuff from my earliest attempts at
MF 3D.  I've at least gotten to the point now where I have some
presentable images...but David Lee I'll never be.  :-(

>       When reviewing all these stereo shots, I began trying to find common
> demominators of the great shots.  This discovery process will help me know
> which scenes are best recorded on 3d.  This was my findings, and I would
> appreciate additional input on this issue... it sure would help us
> beginners..
> 
> 1.  A range of subjects from near to far, creating an extreme depth feeling.

Personally I feel it is very important to have subjects that
are spaced out along the z-axis with definite air space in
between.  Think of pictures like a) looking up at the top
of a flag pole from the bottom of it; b) looking down the
length of a 2x4; looking along the side of a barn; c) a field
of tall but solid grass.  These shots are dreadfully boring
stereoscopy, IMO.  (The shot of the 2x4 could be somewhat
dramatic by making the lumber come through the window, but
that's a different issue.)  Scatter some grazing goats at
varying distances around the field of grass, and it will be
a far more interestingly example of stereoscopy.  Overload
the field with so many goats that it's wall-to-wall goat,
and the scene will lose most of it's stereoscopic impact.

> 4.  A scene that did not offer monotone color, like solid green.  It seemed
> when there was different colors poping out at different distances it created
> more depth.

This could depend on whether the reds are toward the
front and blues toward the back, or vice versa.

BTW, many thanks to Bill for sharing his extensive photographic
knowledge with me when we visited.  I'm hoping to put all of
it to use in tackling some of the demons that have plagued my
photo efforts over the years.

And let me add that if you ever get to Vegas, don't miss the
Atlantis 3D Imax ride at Ceasar's Palace.  It's the best
3D experience I've ever had.  (And I was amazed to see
something from Imax where all the action wasn't right in
your lap.  It was a huge improvement over the way they
present stuff in the regular 3D Imax movies.  Screen size
might be much of the reason, or perhaps the additional
flexibility they had from not working with real cameras.)
The only problem: it was too short!  I partially solved
that by taking advantage of the 1/2 price "re-ride."

Paul Talbot