Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D
|
|
| Notice |
|
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
|
|
Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1281
I recently had a film, taken with a Nishika, processed at Ritz Cameras
6711 Ritz Way Beltsvile, MD 20705-1384. Ritz uses only 3 of the 4
negatives. The color was good and the images were clear but I did not
feel that the 3d effect was as good as the prints from Nishika used to
be.
The Widescreen Centre in England (Two locations) will print Nishika using
all four negatives. Their Email Address is ac01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It is my understanding that Weber's in New York will also process
using the 4 negatives. I don't have their address handy by can look
it if further assistance is required.
On Fri, 12 Apr 1996 photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> PHOTO-3D Digest 1281
>
> Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) 3 eyes do not an imaging system make
> by P3D Peter Abrahams <telscope@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 2) Re: Kellogs & Lenticulars
> by P3D Joerg Meyer [Inf.] <jmeyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 3) Digest # 1278
> by P3D <pzuijlekom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 4) Re: Realist Viewer Modification for Extended Lamp Life
> by P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 5) 3-D movies are back!
> by P3D <ROLANDROLA@xxxxxxx>
> 6) Re: The Third Eye
> by P3D Joerg Meyer [Inf.] <jmeyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 7) Re: 3-D find American Geographic
> by P3D <VMMARYANN@xxxxxxx>
> 8) Basset/Gruber Human Body image collection on CD
> by P3D <Alan.Hancock@xxxxxx>
> 9) Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1280
> by P3D harold lee tichenor <hticheno@xxxxxxxxx>
> 10) Re: NIMSLO HELP REQUEST
> by P3D alberto jeno <ajeno01@xxxxxxx>
> 11) 19th century stereoviews
> by P3D Richard A Wood <JSRAW2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 12) Heat Seal Mounts/ Good use for Cardboard Slip In Mounts
> by P3D <scooter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 13) Stereo Cameras...
> by P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 01:04 PDT
> From: P3D Peter Abrahams <telscope@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 3 eyes do not an imaging system make
> Message-ID: <m0u7dqb-000ElUC@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> >>Any zoologists out there aware of animals that have more than two eyes? Where
> >>do they keep the "extras"? And what's their visualizing advantage thought to
> >>be?
> >Plenty. Spiders have multiple *kinds* of eyes (i.e. some simple, some
> >compound). The different kinds of eyes are used for different purposes.
> >Scallops have numerous eyes, all around the edge of the shell, which they
> >may use to sense danger so they can swim away. (Thus illustrating that
> >bivalves are not as limited as one might think.)
> Further illustrating that eyes can be more like light detectors than imaging
> systems, and that an eye with a miniscule brain behind it might not see 3d
> like we expect.
> (Not that either author quoted thought otherwise.)
>
> Slightly off-topic here are any of the common scallop's 60 eyes: they are
> catadioptric,
> with a lens that has a reflecting membrane on the back surface. The cornea
> acts to converge light at its center and diverge light at the edges. The
> combination focuses light on some type of fovea. Excuse my lack of citation
> here, I can dig it up.
>
> Gigantocypris, a plankton, has no lens, but a concave reflecting membrane
> that focuses onto something like a fovea mid-eye, in each of two eyes.
>
> Neither of these critters can form an image that we would deem acceptable.
> So, why not nominate them to be art critics, or judges at a stereo photo
> contest?
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> telscope@xxxxxxxxxx (Peter Abrahams)
> the history of the telescope,
> the prism binocular, and the microscope
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 10:24 CETDST
> From: P3D Joerg Meyer [Inf.] <jmeyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: mwarrington@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Kellogs & Lenticulars
> Message-ID: <m0u7e9D-0000ZPC@xxxx>
>
> Time for a commercial break...
>
> On Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:08:57 GMT mwarrington@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >Some one at Kelloggs (cornflakes...), has obviously "discovered" lenticular
> >technology. In the UK at the moment they are giving away small (3"x3")
> >lenticular animations with Frosties. [...]
>
> They sell these in Germany, too. One in each box.
> Obviously they are not in 3-D, but show two different
> images (magic tiger suddenly disappearing from the
> scene). Looks funny... :-)
>
> Now back to our regular program...
>
>
> Joerg
>
>
> _V_ | Joerg Meyer ----------- University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
> / \ | Department of Computer Science, Computer Graphics Group -----
> |O O| | E-Mail: jmeyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -------------------------------
> ooO--U--Ooo | URL : http://davinci.informatik.uni-kl.de/~jmeyer ---------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 10:03:25 CET
> From: P3D <pzuijlekom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Digest # 1278
> Message-ID: <9603128293.AA829329183@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Dear all,
>
> In digest # 1278 Peter Abrahams has found a unique way to
> unsubscribe. I have never seen this before ! Congrats !
>
> He starts with :
>
> >>photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote : <<
>
> Then the whole of # 1271 follows
>
> And at the end he simply, but effectively writes :
>
> >> unsubscribe <<
>
> Wow !
>
> Peter van Zuijlekom
> The Netherlands
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:30:05 -0400
> From: P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Realist Viewer Modification for Extended Lamp Life
> Message-ID: <199604120930.FAA27680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Steve Spicer's modifications for extending lamp life in the Realist viewer
> are interesting... However, I have to question the cost saving in doing so...
>
> My experience shows that the 0.8A/2.5V bulbs last for a very long time.
> Under heavy use, the bulbs in my viewer last a minimum of one year, maybe
> two years or more (50 years from now I might have more statistical data ;))
>
> I sell these bulbs for $6 each.
>
> So, why should one modify the viewer and risk damage and improper operation
> to save $6 a year (assuming that the bulb last only one year in the unmodified
> viewer and infinitely in the modified viewer)?
>
> To put things in perspective, it costs me $5 for a roll of 36 exp. and $8
> for processing... I shoot about 60 rolls a year... If I get into the habbit
> of loading my Realist in the dark I could be saving two pairs per roll or
> 120 pairs per year which is 4 rolls at a cost savings of $50. Heck, I could
> save $26/year by just taking one pair less per roll or keeping less pairs.
>
> The bottom line is this: 3-D is a rather expensive hobby... should we
> worry about saving $6 a year on a light bulb? Or, why don't we let a poor
> honest hobbyist like me, make a few bucks on these bulbs? ;) ;) ;)
>
> So, Steve, your idea is clever but not worth the effort or risk IMO.
>
> Along these lines however, one can create an adjustable brightness viewer...
> It has occured to me that if one could plate the button contact with
> substances of different conductivity (low at the end, high at the top) then
> the light will be dim as you first press the button and brighter as you
> keep on pressing it further... This way you have both the light and
> rheostat controls in one button... It would be great... Steve, start
> working towards these lines... Instead of putting a resistor one should
> look for platings of various conductivities to plate the switch.
>
> >At the same time, I got all my battery and switch contacts in two viewers
> >silver-plated to eliminate the lamp flicker I was getting from poor
> >contacts (cost was about US$7.50 per viewer). I hope that works out too.
>
> I clean the contacts in my viewer every time I notice flickering... This is
> about twice a year I would guess... If you know where and how to clean
> them, this is not a problem... I have to stress this "know where and how".
> If you don't know where to clean, then you will not be able to do a good job.
> If you don't know how to clean, then you might damage the contacts.
> Because this is a rather important subject, I plan to cover it in great
> detail in my next (2nd edition of my Realist red button book) which will be
> available at the NSA convention this summer and also cover it in a future
> article in "Inside 3-D" (Dalia's news.... err... Mini-Magazine). I will
> also post something in photo-3d, but the pictures in the book will be worth
> many more words.
>
> Silver-plating is a good idea to avoid this rather infrequent maintenance
> but for me this is not a problem, plus it gives me the chance to bond with
> my viewer... ;)
>
> George Themelis
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:12:11 -0400
> From: P3D <ROLANDROLA@xxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 3-D movies are back!
> Message-ID: <960412071210_270109086@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I have written in the past about 3-D TV and the lack of titles they have
> (they use to have a lot more titles years ago). Well, I have found someone
> who is selling the titles that 3-D TV use to have. I called them last night.
> They are selling them for only $25 a title (half what 3-D TV use to sell them
> for!). The titles they have now (more later) are:
>
> Jaws 3-D
> Spacehunter
> Friday the 13th 3-D
> Metalstorm
> House of Wax
> Parasite
> Treasurer of the Four Crowns
> Andy Warhols Frankenstein
> Emanuel 4
> Rottweiller
>
> You can call them at (510) 753-0169. Ask for Shawn. Its the same system as
> 3-D TV. The above titles and more have been selling in Japan for years!
>
> Roland Lataille
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 13:04 CETDST
> From: P3D Joerg Meyer [Inf.] <jmeyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: johnb@xxxxxx
> Subject: Re: The Third Eye
> Message-ID: <m0u7gew-0000ZfC@xxxx>
>
> On 11 Apr 1996 17:49:33 John Bell <johnb@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Any zoologists out there aware of animals that have more than two eyes? Where
> >do they keep the "extras"? And what's their visualizing advantage thought to
> >be?
>
> There is some sort of fish which has four eyes,
> two under water and two above the surface.
> So they can watch their prey under water
> and their enemies (birds, etc.) in the sky
> at the same time.
> I'm not sure if they can point their eyes
> in four differrent directions. I think there
> are always two eyes in the same eye hole.
> I wonder how the visual cortex processes
> four different images...
>
>
> Joerg
>
>
> _V_ | Joerg Meyer ----------- University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
> / \ | Department of Computer Science, Computer Graphics Group -----
> |O O| | E-Mail: jmeyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -------------------------------
> ooO--U--Ooo | URL : http://davinci.informatik.uni-kl.de/~jmeyer ---------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:34:52 -0400
> From: P3D <VMMARYANN@xxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: 3-D find American Geographic
> Message-ID: <960412083451_374015840@xxxxxx>
>
> In a message dated 96-04-11 19:08:15 EDT, you write:
>
> > 11 Boxed Volumes by Nelson Doubleday titled "Around the World Program" by
> >the American Geographical Society (not the National Geograhic)....each has
> a
> >pull out tab, inside are 5 or 6 booklets. Four of these volumes have a
> seven
> >image Tru-Vue format 3-D card that match the booklets inside. Each booklet,
> >with publish dates ranging from early 1950s through mid 1960s, has articles
> >about the area of the world covered....with color stamps, all intact and not
> >torn out.....which can then be wetted and stuck in the designated
> >illustration areas in the books.
> >
> >
>
> These books were sold in a standard version without the Tru-view or boxes,
> and are quite common, don't know the exact number made. The storage boxes
> were sold as an extra.
>
> For an additional .35 cents you could get yours shipped with your choice of a
> Tru-View card or a View-Master Reel. These are much harder to find.
>
> Some neat stuff out there if you look hard.
>
> Great find.
>
> Wolfgang Sell
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 13:46:18 GMT
> From: P3D <Alan.Hancock@xxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, synthonics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Basset/Gruber Human Body image collection on CD
> Message-ID: <9603128293.AA829342038@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Bassett/Gruber VM Anatomy set available as anaglyphs on CD
>
> > The most complete Stereo Image collection of the Human Body
> >
> > The Bassett Collection of stereo images of the human body contains over
> > 1500 stereo pairs of images that have been converted to anaglyphs using
> > Synthonics 3D Maker. This collection is being transferred to CD ROM for
> > use as an aid in anatomy classes and for general interest.
> > Each CD ROM will be priced at US$29.95. Look for these CD's to be available
> > first quarter of 1996. Meanwhile, check out the sample images here:-
> >
> > http://isle.net/~synthonics/medic01.html
>
> This is wonderful project but how about providing the actual scanned
> images as a pair of images on the CD so that Liquid Crystal Shutter
> glass viewing systems can be used to better view these images on a
> computer monitor. Also if a non anaglyph format of the image pair are
> made available then printing one image of the pair as a reference for
> students would also be possible.
>
> There are now several cheap systems on the market from StereoGraphics
> Corp., Kasan, Chinon and others. IMHO the best system is the SimulEyes
> VR from StereoGraphics Corp. , these glasses can be connected direct to
> your VGA or SVGA monitor output on a PC so no add-on cards to install
> (cost is around $150.00). Some special interface software may need to be
> written to present the stereo pair image files from the CD but this
> should be no real problem and producers like Kasan already provide
> utilities for viewing stereo image pairs and 3D animation sequences.
> Perhaps if Synthonics get together with a producer of LCD glasses to
> produce a bundled product then a useful system could be created that
> would support both anaglyph and stereo pair viewing.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:57:41 -0700
> From: P3D harold lee tichenor <hticheno@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1280
> Message-ID: <316E8B85.5FB3@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Marvin Jones in Photo-3d 1280 wrote:
> > at least three classic 3D movies were made by men with no depth perception.
> >Andre deToth (House of Wax and Bounty Hunter) had only one eye, and Herb
> >Strok (Gog) could not see in depth. Amazingly, de Toth has had a long-term
> >fascination with 3D. I can remember sitting in on screenings of Spacevision
> >demos in the early '80s with de Toth, wearing his polaroid glasses over his
> >eye patch and apparently fascinated by all he saw, or rather DIDN'T see!
>
> I think it was in Time magazine when House of Wax was released that de Toth,
> when questioned about his one eye, was quoted as saying "Well, Beethoven was
> deaf when he wrote his Choral Symphony." :-)
>
> Regards
> Harold
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:50:45 -0400 (EDT)
> From: P3D alberto jeno <ajeno01@xxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: NIMSLO HELP REQUEST
> Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960412134317.12319C-100000@xxxxx>
>
>
>
> Now that Nishika's gone under, and ImageTech has announced they'll
> no longer handle four lens negatives, where, I ask you, where can a body
> go to get his roll of Nishika and Nimslo film developed with any
> quality? Whatever you may think of the manner in which Nishika distributed
> its wares (some marketing scheme) they did make a decent product -even
> if it was overpriced. And in my opinion, the quality of the prints that
> came back from the Nishika labs was substantially better than those of
> Image Tech's three-lens technology.
>
> I have found a small place on East Broadway in NYC, and they use machines
> from Hong Kong as well as over-seas lenticular stock- but I don't know
> the quality from this lab. Does anyone know a place in This World where
> I can take these? A place with some kind of reputation maybe? Hopefully
> not as far as Singapore (the other lab I found)?
>
>
> I'll bet I'm not the only 4-lens user wandering around asking these
> questions, but this is my first time one the list, so please forgive
> the repititions of a newbie.
>
> -Al A. J.
>
> ajeno01@xxxxxxx
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:08:04 -0800
> From: P3D Richard A Wood <JSRAW2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 19th century stereoviews
> Message-ID: <01I3G9MKBM3QAG4OQE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Dan Shelley commented that there are few well-made 19th century stereo
> pairs. Judging from what one sees at antique shops these days, that
> is a fair appraisal. There are millions of horrible, cheap views for
> sale that no one wants. But go to an NSA convention and you'll see
> that there is nothing better than 19th century stereos. They used 5X8
> cameras. The negative was 5X8, often the top inch or so was not used.
> They contact-printed (using sunlight for, say, 5-30 minutes). Each
> Realist format of 24mm X 24mm. Even with 25ASA film in a Realist,
> you get grainy prints. The negative is too small. Look at a good
> Anthony from the 1860's. They are incredibly sharp with rich tones.
> The book titled "The Albumen and Salted Paper Book", now out of
> print, is excellent for showing how 19th century stereoviews were
> made. Regarding the term stereopticon, this is a name for a
> "magic lantern", or early form of slide projector. I presume the
> stereo of stereopticon is due to the fact that often two or
> three projectors were used to allow dissolving from one slide
> to the next. The two projector, stacked, unit is called a biunial
> lantern. A three projector unit is a triunial lantern. These are
> stereopticons. Antiques dealers are notorious for calling
> stereoscopes stereopticons. If it shows 3-D, it's a stereoscope.
> And while purists like to call stereoviews "stereographs", most
> 19th century ads and studio signs read stereoviews. Don't be
> discouraged by the junky stereos at antique malls. Really great
> views show up every day. There is, however, frenetic competition
> for them. You have to work hard to find them, but they are often
> priced at pennies on the dollar. Most antiques dealers don't
> know a 25 cent view from a $500 view.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:11:09 -0700
> From: P3D <scooter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Heat Seal Mounts/ Good use for Cardboard Slip In Mounts
> Message-ID: <199604121911.MAA04607@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Ted Gosfield writes:
>
> question 1) ?comparative experience with the RMM cardboard mounts vs
> Reel-3d cardboard mounts for Realist format pairs. I don't like the
> cardboard 'slip in' Reel-3d mounts much. The idea is nice, but the
> execution isn't. The RMM cardboard mounts seem free of 'fuzzies'.
> How
> are the reel-3d ones? I know that Albion aluminum mounts would be
> better
> than any cardboard, but i need something for the 'less than A+
> quality'
> shots that i still want to keep.
>
> Without digging out my samples of the RMM cardboard mounts, I have a
> few things to say about the heat seal mounts sold by Reel 3D.
> Wonderful, fantastic, cheap to buy, nice to look at, easy to use, feel
> good in your hand, easy to label. Need I say more? I just got my
> first package a month or so ago, and just ordered two more. I mount
> my best ones with albion or Sigma metal mounts in glass with EMDE
> binder frames. But for all around use of average to below average
> shots too good to toss, the heat seal mounts are the BEST. I live in
> fear that the machine that makes them will break down and I'll be
> stuck. (Same could be said for the Viewmaster machine, though.) When I
> started, I was using the Sigma metal masks (no longer produced due to
> machine failure). They are accurate mounts, but I'm scavenging the
> old Sigma masks and remounting those old shots in the heat seal
> mounts, because the aluminum jobs bend, don't feel very good in your
> hand, and get jammed in a projector unless they are put in a cardboard
> foldover or binder frame (UGHH!!-hate those cardboard foldover things.
> So ugly only a mother would love them, regrettably useful sometimes,
> though.) Nice thing about the aluminum mounts, though, is that they
> don't take up a lot of room. They are pretty thin.
>
> I know those slip in mounts are awful for regular mounting, and
> expensive to boot, but I discovered a new use for them recently. I
> use them as temporary mounts when I'm cutting my filmstrips and use
> them as holders. They are re-useable, and are great for viewing when
> you are trying to decide which slides to put in heat seal, which to
> discard, and which ones to mount accurately in metal masks and finish
> with glass for projection/competition. It's also nice when time is
> limited and you just want to cut your slides and get a quick look, and
> then later, you can go back and mount the slides properly.
>
> What I don't know however, is what if I make a mistake and want to
> take a pair out of heat seal mounts and put them in metal albions. Am
> I going to have sticky, impossible to remove glue on the edges of my
> slides after I get them out of the heat seal mounts?
>
>
> Steve Owsley.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:30:54 -0700
> From: P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Stereo Cameras...
> Message-ID: <199604121930.MAA26577@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Greetings, fellow Stereophiles!
>
> My name is Greg Wageman. I've mostly been lurking on this list for a few
> weeks. I got bitten rather badly I'm afraid by the "stereo bug" just
> recently. A few weeks ago I couldn't even spell stereophile, and now
> I are one. :-) The recent discussion of collector v. user had me
> chuckling, as I was completing negotiations for purchasing my fifth
> stereo camera. I have a number of comments and questions, and I hope
> to just stir up all kinds of commentary from you all. (Collector! User!
> Tastes great! Less filling! (-; )
>
> Stereo Realists
>
> My first Realist was purchased at a local antique dealer's shop. It was
> in an ancient leather camera case. It's a 3.5, in perfect working order,
> lens cover intact, with case. Also in the bag was a rapid-rewind crank
> handle, a set of push-on lens filters in Realist case (with half the set
> of six missing, unfortunately), a set of combination lens shade/filter
> holders in original White Co. box, and an aftermarket spirit level mounted
> in a spring-steel ring, that pushes onto the viewfinder opening. Oh, and
> a pair of Series V haze filters that fit in the lens shade/filter holders.
> I bargained the guy down to $210 for all of that. Oh, and there was also
> a lens cap and a set of the screw-on filter holder rings for a Kodak
> Stereo, as well as an original instruction booklet for same. No book
> for the Realist, unfortunately.
>
> My second (and probably last) Realist is a 2.8 Custom. Here's where my
> questions start. :-) According to McKeown's, there are "authentic" 2.8
> Customs, and some "knock-offs". I would like to know more about these.
> Who was it that put these together? Are they really worth that much
> less than the "originals"? Are there varying grades, like some made with
> a mix of Custom and 3.5 parts? Is there literature on the history of
> these cameras and/or stereo cameras in general? If not, why not? :-)
>
> Again according to McKeown's, mine is not a factory-assembled Custom,
> since the serial number is too high, but it does have the faster shutter,
> 2.8 lenses and the larger rewind knob that cuts into the top plate. It
> also has the anti-double-exposure feature w/defeat, which the 3.5 lacks.
> I paid altogether too much for it. :-)
>
> Are there any records remaining of original ownership of these cameras?
> I know that many Hollywood celebrities owned them in the 50's and 60's.
> Since there are only supposed to be about 150,000 of them, that means
> that everyone who owns one has at least a 1 in 150,000 chance of owning
> one that was owned by a star. Better odds than winning the lottery,
> that's for sure. :-)
>
> Kodak Stereos
>
> Boy, there sure is a world of difference between a Realist and a Kodak,
> isn't there? The Kodak is mostly Bakelite. What do you want for a camera
> that listed at slightly more that half the price, I guess ($84.50 for the
> Kodak vs. $159 for the Realist). Mine has shutter problems,
> which I am working to fix. I've already disassembled the camera and
> removed and opened up the shutter assembly. (I can hear some of you
> cringing. I'm very adept mechanically, thank you. Besides, if I trash
> it, the value of yours goes up. (-: ) While I was in there, I
> cleaned the front-surface mirrors in the viewfinder path. Boy, did that
> make a world of difference. No more fog!
>
> The shutter problem at first was that the gear retarder mechanism was very
> balky. Half the time (or more), it wouldn't "wind up" when the shutter was
> cocked, meaning you couldn't reliably get a shutter speed slower than
> 1/200th. I applied a bit of lubricant, and it now works better, but the
> shutters themselves have become very, very sticky. My guess is that the
> new lubricant has turned whatever ancient lube was present to gum. I think
> the best course of action would be to flush the entire mechanism with a
> mild solvent such as denatured alchohol. What do you folks think? My
> only concern is that the lens elements may be held in with some kind of
> cement that the solvent could dissolve?
>
> Revere 33
>
> The last of my cameras is a Revere 33. It too seems to be in perfect
> mechanical condition, although when I got it I could hear some small
> parts moving inside when the camera was inverted. I opened up the
> bottom plate (which has a dummy screw on it for symmetry, of all things),
> and two ball bearings fell out of it. They weren't very small, about
> 1.5-2mm in diameter. Does anyone know if any part of the mechanism uses
> ball bearings? As I said, everything seems to work properly, but I have
> no idea how they might have gotten in there if they didn't come out of the
> mechanism, and since it isn't broken I haven't taken it apart any further
> to see.
>
> Random Ramblings
>
> I was trying to figure out a way to take identical pictures on the same
> film stock with each camera, in order to compare image quality, and yet
> have some way to differentiate the developed film without "wasting" a
> stereo pair on a title card, when I discovered that each of these cameras
> has a different method of marking the left and right images of the stereo
> pair. The 3.5 Realist's method is not to mark either image. :-) The
> Custom puts a V-shaped notch on the top of the right image only. The
> Revere puts a square notch on the top of the right image only, and the
> Kodak puts one V-shaped notch on the left image and TWO V-shaped notches
> on the right image. Totally bizarre. :-)
>
> Overall I like the feel of the Revere the best. Both the Revere and the
> Kodak automatically cock the shutter when the film is advanced, unlike
> either Realist. All allow the shutter to be cocked manually. The Custom
> requires you to pull out a small pin to defeat the anti-double-exposure
> mechanism. The Revere's viewfinder is harder to use for a person like
> me with glasses. The Revere's rangefinder is superior to the Realist's.
> The Kodak lacks a rangefinder. The Realist lacks a spirit level.
>
> That's probably more than enough for today... Any answers and information
> is much appreciated. Thanks to all, and especially to the list maintainers.
>
> -Greg
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1281
> ***************************
>
------------------------------
End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1282
***************************
|