Re: Realist History and Hat

[P3D Bill Davis <bd3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George posts:

>Bill Davis' attempt to rewrite stereo history deserves a response from DrT:
>
>>In 1947, a small optics company in Milwaukee, facing a post-war slowdown,
>>goes out on a limb and decides to try building and selling cameras. 
>>Stereo cameras.
>
>The David White company was never an optics company.  It was (and still is)
>a precision instrument company, specializing in surveying equipment.

I see.  Surveying equipment but not optics.  My mistake.
 
>The decision to build and sell stereo cameras was a
>happy coincidence, described in the last issue of the "Stereogram" (issue
>2, vol. 1), reproduced here by permission of both the author and the
editor:-):

Won't your paid subscribers be chagrined when you publish the newsletter
here for free? :--)


>"In 1943, a young engineer named Seton Rochwite went to the David White
>Company in Milwaukee for a job interview.  Seton brought with him a stereo
>viewer that he had built, and color stereo slides

What was this wonderful color slide film that both inspired Mr. Rochwite
and made the whole "Realit-format" thing possible? (Hint: *not*
Realistchrome   :--))


>.....  Seton Rochwite was hired in the fall of 1943 and started working
>on the design of the system.  He designed the camera, viewer (red button)
>and even the Realist logo!  By 1947 the Realist was ready to come out and
>Seton quit his job and moved ahead to face new challenges."

Hmm, puts his all into this baby for four years, the camera is finally
ready to come out and he quits?!?  Facing new challenges is cool and all.
As long as it wasn't some disagreement about the quality of the production
cameras or design compromises or anything like that.  :--)

>
>At least we have a documented history behind the production of the first
>American stereo camera.  What do we know about Kodak?  

Big company.  Lots of experience in photography.  Was building stereo
cameras when David White was still called "Davey".  :--)  Made an
incredible slide film that made View-Master and Realist very successful.

>It was introduced in
>1955 trying to capture some of the pie that was cooked by David White and
>the Realist. 

Trying to capture *some*?  Lets see, Realist made cameras for 23 years, has
total production 120 to 150K.  Kodak sells 35 mm Stereo 5 years, sells 110
to 120K.  I'd say that between 1955 and 1959 Kodak pretty much had the
whole pie, grabbing 50% of the market the first year out.  Realist and all
the others were allowed the remaining  portion to fight over.  

Kodak got the film and processing sales anyway, regardless of the camera
sales. (Most Realist owners spent more money with Kodak than they ever did
with David White).      

>And it was successful thanks to the low selling price (half
>the Realist) no doubt possible via the use of cheaper materials and cutting
>off features like the rangefinder.
 
To Kodak, cameras were just another way to sell more film and processing.
That's *always* been their cash cow.  Sure they employed some of the best
and *could* have made a real whiz-bang Stereo (Stereo Retina, maybe), but I
suppose they figured that they would be able to sell a lot of these
film-consuming devices even without "features" like rangefinders. The value
of rangefinders is debatable.

>>So they introduce this Realist camera with nifty Ilex Paragon 3.5 lenses.
>>Takes great pictures, real sharp, no vignetting at small apertures. When
>>the public begins to see the great images possible (remember BobH and his
>>friends trading in Leicas) and begin to increase demand, the company
>>substitutes cheaper lenses for the remainder of the product's 20-year
>>lifetime.

>.... Whether the Ilex lenses are better than the 3.5 lenses is
>debatable.  Lack of good quality control those days has produced cameras
>with good lenses and cameras with not so good lenses.

It seemed that I had heard something about the Ilex's greater desirability
from someone on this list.  Since this someone eschews collecting and is an
accomplished stereographer, I assumed the lenses offered some practical
benefits.  :--)
 
>>Later, (possibly in an attempt to regain the public's respect?), Realist
>>introduces a run of 2.8 cameras, using some excellent Kodak lenses.  The
>>public bites, the company switches to cheaper lenses for the remainder of
>>the product lifetime.
>
>The first 2.8 cameras with the Kodak Ektar lenses were introduced very
>early (not later and not in an attempt to regain the public's respect) 
>Whether these lenses are better than the David White 2.8 lenses is also
>debatable.  I know people who have tried both and prefer the DW 2.8.

See comments above.  Substitute Ektar for Ilex.

>>I seem to see a pattern here.  Same story with the Handi-Viewers?
>
>The pattern is only in your mind... 

There's no pattern left in this mind, I'm afraid. Disorder reigns within my
cranium (and me without an umbrella).    

>Realist did not change the basic design
>of the camera, except to make improvements. Did Kodak do that?

No need.  When you do it right the first time, you generally don't need to
keep trying.  :--)

>Realist
>switched lenses but they all have good reputation.  At least, it is to
>David White's credit that they sold cameras with 3.5 and 2.8 lenses
>(buyer's choice) and made deluxe cameras like the Custom and a unique Macro
>stereo camera.  No to mention the variety of viewers, the Stereo
>Projectors, the mounts, the cutter and mounting kits, filters, etc., etc.,
>etc....
>
>Did Kodak make anything else other than the "best seller" Kodak Stereo and
>the Kodaslide viewers? 

Mounts, cutter and mounting kits were unnecessary.  *Desirable*, maybe, but
not necessary. I seem to remember that one of the factors in Kodak getting
into 35 mm Stereo was their design of an automated mounting service.  With
camera, film, processing and mounting, they had the pie, the fruit and
sugar concessions, the bakers and the ovens.  Must have been scary times
over in Milwaukee.   

>(As an afterthought, yes, it did make a special
>Kodak with a rangefinder... but only for one person, "Mr. Stereo", right
>Bill?)

Yeah, out of all 120,000 Kodak Stereo users, he was the only one who wanted
a rangefinder.  Probably for the novelty.

>Since you mentioned viewers, how about Kodak's Kodaslide I with some of the
>worst lenses ever put in a stereo viewer?  

Aw, they aren't all *that* bad.  Certainly not up to Kodaslide II
standards, or even a Red Button :--), but better than a Star viewer, or a
Guild, for sure. 

>Perhaps the handi-viewer was an
>attempt to capture some of the cheaper crowd served by Kodak. :-)

Desperate attempt to forestall the inevitable. 

>>Change all the lenses you want, George.  That hat is mine!   :--)
>
>When the going gets tough it is time to pull out that twin SLR rig Bill...
>See if your Kodak can beat that!!! 

You working twin SLRs in the dark, versus me and a Kodak in the dark huh?
I'll be back home in bed before you're done setting up.  
 
>
>THE HAT IS MINE!  :-)

>-- George Themelis

I'm going to wear it in the rain.




Best regards,
Bill Davis
mailto:bd3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



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