Re: 3d Camara - Need Advice

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Duane Kimball writes:

>I have for quite some time sat back and watched the bickering over what is
>the best 3-D camera format. [...]
>I shoot in four different formats and each is best for a particular purpose.

>Single Camera  >Nimslo (Teco Modified)  >FED Boy  >Realist

The way I see things, these are not camera *formats* but camera 
*systems* and you are using them in one format, the "Realist format".
In a previous posting I tried to make this clear.  You can use any of
the above cameras to take pictures, but if you are using a transparent
film medium and you mount it in the standard mount (includes 4, 5,
7, 8p) then you are using the REALIST FORMAT.  As a result, I can use
my Realist-format viewer and projector to view your work.

On the other hand, if you use any of the above camera systems with print 
film to get prints or if you use slides mounted in 2x2 slide holders or 
if you digitize them to put in the computer, then you are not using the 
Realist-format and I might not be prepared to view your work.

There are many people in this list that do not work in the Realist
format.  Some of them even use a Realist camera!

>I have often thought it would be fun to get together a competition between
>those of us who use and enjoy many formats and the the Realist
>affectionatos.  It would be called "Try That with Your Rickety Ol' Realist".

You are implying that there are two groups of stereo photographers:
Group A: Those who enjoy many formats.  Group B: Those "narrow-minded"
Realist affectionatos that will only use a Realist and nothing else.
FYI, I belong in the first group since I collect stereo views and
use a single SLR, twin SLRs, and realist-format stereo cameras for
my stereo photography.  I will use ANYTHING that will give me good
results in two film chips mounted in a "Realist-format" mount.

>It is not all that George claims, but it is the greatest of a wonderful
>era for 3-D.

I am not sure what you think that I claim about the Realist.  All that
I have said is that this is the camera and I am using and I like it.
I have spoken highly of the convenience and quality of the "Realist 
format" (slide film mounted in the standard frame.)  I have also said 
publicly and in personal communications that, IMO, it does not matter 
which camera one uses as long as they are happy with the results.  I 
have suggested that the Realist makes a good first-time camera because 
of the low price that it can be occassionally found.  

Heck, I did not mind that the Realist was called "Brick".  It does look 
and feels like a brick... a brick that takes wonderful stereo pictures ;)

I would have not bothered to write any of the above if it was not for
this statement:

>It is a big mistake for a newcomer to start with a Realist UNLESS THEY 
>ARE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH MANUAL CAMERAS.  Most are used to modern day,
>ergonomic cameras with automatic settings.  The manual features of the
>camera are a BIG turn-off.

I assume that you don't mean the Realist camera here, but ANY stereo 
camera of the 50s, since ALL of them are manual.  

I don't think it's a mistake to try a classic stereo camera without
being familiar with manual operation.  I have trained people to do this.
It takes me 10 minutes and one paragraph of instructions.  All have
come back with a roll well-exposed WITHOUT a light meter!  Most people
express surprise on how simple the issue of exposure is.  And, at the
end, they agree that knowing what "shutter speed" and "aperture" means 
and how it affects the pictures and having control over it is a BIG PLUS.

Regards -- George Themelis, proud owner and user of a 3.5 Brick.


------------------------------