Re: More thoughts on formats

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't have anything important to contribute, just a few thoughts...

> Why do most 5-P format cameras lack borders between frames? 

Perhaps to save on film?  How expensive was Kodachrome in 1947?
The lenses in the Realist were already spaced too far apart (further
than the average interocular) so perhaps a few mm more was too much?
I agree with Sam about the complications of this tight spacing, even
though with slide film it is normally not a problem thanks to the
masking provided by the frame.

>Another plus for 7-P: a 24x30mm image is exactly proportionate to an 8x10
>enlargement. No loss, no waste. This format should have been the standard
>for conventional 35mm, not 24x36mm.

Interesting thought... I too like the 7-P and prefer it over full-frame.  
Seems better proportioned... Full-frame is too long for square projection 
screens and round lenses.  In the Detroit stereo club they set the screen
for 7-p maximum.  You can submit full-frame slides in RBT mounts but part
of the image will not be projected on the screen.

>The Realist Model ST42 .......... $ 227.50 US
>The Leica IIIC .................. $ 350 US
>Rolleiflex Automatic 2.8 TLR .... $ 325 US
>and Nikon's "S" ................. $ 349 US

>With top-of the-line Leicas, Rolleis and
>Nikons now going for $ 2000 and up, it seems that little has changed as far
>as affordability. Yet what has happened to stereo camera prices? Is the RBT
>really that far out of line at $ 3000? 

It seems to me that those serious stereo photographers who have a $2000
Nikon, also have an RBT by now... and a Brackett Disolver too (or RBT
projector).  The rest of us are still working with a $250 SLR and a cheap
50s stereo camera... The $100 Realist still appears to be the best deal for
the money... ;)

George


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