Re: Projection and downfall of 3D

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.

The David White company provided mounting services, including a
deal where film would be sent to Kodak for processing and then
auto-forwarded to the David White company (Realist) for mounting.
Their newsletters are interesting reading (some are in the Reel-3D
back issue "books") -- they read like old newsreels "sound".  A
style of the time.

So if blame is to be distributed, pass some on to the "mother" company
that brought us the Realist camera as well.

I wonder how well the "trained personel" did in their "precision mounting"
as to whether they custom mounted/masked/push_pulled (etc) images or
did they pick one of the three mounts and do a mount-to-infinity
method (fixed spacing between homogolous points for the most distant 
points in the image), or just what.  Didn't they have a "premium"
mount and a "econo" mount service?  

Truth is, that even with wonderful time consuming mounting to optimize
an image, it really isn't all that hard to *take* a picture that
would still bend one's eyes behind one's back.  Just take a picture
that isn't in focus everywhere or has something 3 feet in front of
the camera and all the way back to infinity, etc.  With 2D, it's
hard to hurt the eyes.  It's still hard to make a good image, but bad
ones are just boring -- they don't hurt.  :-)

> 
> 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...

Reviews I've read of some of the jigs say that some aren't too good
because they assume different spacings.  Probably brand specific (?).

Although the format had some sense of standardization, there wasn't
(at least not used) comprehensive standard.  Camera interocculars
varied, the assumed window distance varied, etc.
Perhaps David White should have licensed and awarded a Logo like 
Microsoft does for system compatible cameras, jigs, etc.  Taking
a nominal "fee" per-camera of course.  :-)

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

I like them too, even if they drive me crazy.  The projection-preview
gizmo that John made sounds particularly interesting and maybe something
I'd like to get (assuming availablity). Has anyone bought one from John and
had time to use it enough to post a "review"?  Details posted have been 
somewhat vague.  Or was NSA convention attendance a requirement?  :-(

Mike K.


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