Re: Projection and downfall of 3D

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The Good Dr. T. writes:

>On a different but related subject, Rick Inzero 
>presented a "New theory on the 1950s downfall of 3D".  Rick
>looked at a random sample of slides from the 50s and was
>suprised to see how many of them were badly mounted to the
>point of being unviewable.  Part of the downfall of 3-D
>must be certainly due to the inability of the general
>public to use the 3-d medium effectively.

Wouldn't Kodak then be substantially to blame?  As we all know from
this list, Kodak used to make a 35mm "stereo" film, which included
the standard stereo mounting as part of its price.  I would think
that your average snapshot stereographer would go that route.

Is there any kind of statistic available as to what portion of the
general public attempted to mount their own slides?

How many Realist mounting jigs were sold in proportion to cameras?
That might give some indication...

Considering how photofinishers react when I specify "Don't cut or
mount" on my slide film, it certainly ain't all that common today;
is there any reason to believe it would have been more common then?

        -Greg

P.S. Please continue with the show reports.  I'm enjoying them and
     have gotten a sense of vicarious attendence from them...


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