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.
|
|
Half-frames and masses
- From: P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Half-frames and masses
- Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 23:42:51 -0400
Marvin Jones writes
>Actually, few if any "one-hour" processors are prepared to handle half-frames,
>and probably few of the high-end labs can handle them either. Why bother
>tooling for an obsolete format you might be called on to print once in a
>decade? And as long as elitist 3Ders walk around with their noses in the
air >saying "I don't want anyone else to share my interest because it would
cheapen >it for me," there will be no incentive to change, just as there
will be no >incentive to improve anything related to the medium.
I remember reading this same comment before here in P3D, that few if any
one hour or high-end labs handle half-frames. Now I don't know if things
have changed within a year, but I have given a few rolls to my local drug
store that had no problems getting them done, as far as I know. The first
time I gave them in I naively thought I would be getting two views on one
4x6 print, therefore I was expecting 24 prints from a 24 roll film,
similiar to a Loreo or Pentax. You can imagine my pleasent surprise
(I prefered the 4x6 format for each view, even thou I can't use an antique
stereo viewer for them unless I crop them) when I got back 48 4x6 prints,
which translated into 16 stereo pairs (32 prints) and 16 2d prints. I will
keep you posted when I give my next one in a couple of weeks.
Now this brings to mind another question, will it be possible to make
4x6 prints from each half frame as I got from my 3DMagic by Imagetech
with the Loreo. I don't think so, since it is really a beam spitter type
camera, (sorry for the terminalogy) the two views are strictly on one frame
and the developer might not be able to develop this as a half frame. (For
Lincoln Kamm the 3DMagic I used were disposable ones, I have not tried the
non disposable $35 yet, but I imagine the quality will be exactly the same,
now if you go to the higher priced one at $85 its supposed to have better
optics.)
Gabriel
jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------
|