STEREO: PAST-PRESENT-FUTURE (was: Pulfrich, a scam???)

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John W Roberts is kiddding:

>I didn't need to ask you, George. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion
>of Realist photography is well known. The Realists are extinct, their power
>vanished from the universe...

At least I use (color slide) film and a stereo technology that was not 
invented until the 1940s.  How about Bill C. Walton who is still 
practicing last century's stereo photography??? :)))

Seriously, John, last week I bought a big viewer and about 85 large format 
black and white stereo slides taken by an amateur photographer from 1941 to 
1946.  I found those pictures totally fascinating... All of them are family 
pictures showing kids, friends, relatives inside houses mainly.  It is
really fascinating to get a glimpse in somebody's life from 55 years ago.
And that's in nostalgic B&W...

I got thinking that maybe this fellow switched to a Realist in 1947.
I wondered of the first impressions that B&W photographers had of the
Realist and the "miniature" 35 mm Kodachrome film.  I bet many of them
were not thrilled to see the Realist gain popularity at the expense of
their favorite format.  Many of them resisted the Realist and stayed 
with their B&W glass plates until extinction.  

Herbert C. McKay's books very nicely reflect this transition period.  
In 1949 that the "Principles of Stereoscopy" was published, McKay was 
standing between the B&W glass negatives and the new Realist.  By 1952
that the second edition of this book was published as "Three Dimensional
Photography", McKay had jumped the fence and was speaking highly of the
Realist and not very flattering for the dinosaurs left on the other side.

I was wondering what will happen when digital photography comes in and
starts displacing 35 mm film technology.  I will then face a similar 
dilemma like the one that stereo photographers faced in 1947:  Am I going
to be a pioneer or a dinosaur???

I looked at the 85 glass slides that weigh several pounds.  The B&W 
images are charming but fragile, heavy, with scratches, and no color.
The 1947 era stereo roll of Kodachrome is a definite improvement.
Sharp, colorful images.  Easier to capture, mount, store, maintain.
Better photography.  Better stereo.  Today, stereo 35 mm slide film
is the BEST that stereo photography has to offer (with the possible
exeption of MF slides).  That's not Realist 50s technology.  Yes, I do 
use the 50s Realist camera, but I have no choice.  If I could have a 
modern RBT S1 camera for around $1000 I would be using that, instead 
of the Realist.  I also use twin SLRs as you know.  The Realist is not 
the issue... The 35 mm color slide film is.

Now, I am asking you:  Is the digital technology going to offer BETTER
QUALITY than what I am getting now with my REALIST and my 35 mm COLOR
SLIDE FILM?  I know it is going to be more convenient.  My question is:
is it going to be BETTER?  If the answer is YES, then I'll be the first 
to jump the fence.  If the answer is NO, then they'll have to pry my 
REALIST and my RED BUTTON VIEWER over my cold fingers...when my time
comes...

-- George Themelis


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