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.
<-- Date Index --> <-- Thread Index --> [Author Index]

Re: Stereo Mounting


  • From: P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: Stereo Mounting
  • Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 11:20:38 -0700

Phil Palmer writes:

>  By the sound of it 'Realist format' hand viewers are easy to get and
>    are of better quality (Please comment !).
>  It seems to me 2x2 projection (i.e. two matched projectors) would be
>    easier to get hold of than 'Realist format' projectors (Please comment !)

For viewing, I think Realist format wins hands-down.  A viewer and a box
of slides in double-aperture mounts is infinitely more portable than trays
of 2x2 slides, twin projectors and a silver screen.  On the other hand, the
"wow" factor of properly projected slides is much bigger.  I've yet to
find a decent achromatic single 2x2 slide viewer, never mind a stereo
version.

As far as projection of double-aperture mounts goes, from what I can tell
you have few options.  1) Find a classic TDC projector on the used market.
These are hard to find and not cheap when you do, and chances are there
will be problems with a 40-year-old projector.  You're stuck with the
lenses that come with it.  2) Buy a new RBT projector from Jon Golden.
These are even more expensive, but it is a modern design, you have some
options as far as lenses, and spare parts are available.

>Now what I am after is some comments on mounting / viewing / projecting
>formats before I get too set in my ways.

I've gone for a compromise approach.  I always take at least two exposures
of the same shot (not counting bracketing).  One pair I mount in Realist
mounts for viewing.  The other pair I mount in 2x2's for projection.  Yes,
it takes twice as long, but on the other hand both pairs are originals.

	-Greg


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