Re: beam splitter quality

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Shields writes:
>How much better is the Pentax beam splitter than the Porter or the Reel 
>3-D (Franka) in particular. I suppose it is made of metal, but does it 
>use front-surface mirrors or prisms instead of second-surface mirrors? 
>How adjustable is it? I did find the price of a new one and it is 
>ghastly!

I don't know how much better it is. It does use front-surface mirrors,
thus it is better (to what degree, don't know) than the second-surface
mirrors. It isn't adjustable but does come with a slide viewer for it.
As was mentioned on the list it has serious limitations. You'll have
very limited apertures to chose from and very narrow depth of field
consequently. Other than that, I have used it with excellent results
(sharpness wise) taking all the other limitations in consideration.

I bought mine years ago when the price was reasonable. Actually at the
time, I thought ~$120 or so was too much. But as you mention the price
is now ghastly. So how much is it going for now?

But if you are considering it, my strong recommendation is DON'T.
If at that time, I had the guidance of P3D or other 3D enthusiasts,
I would have bought a Realist type camera or twin cameras even when
the Pentax beamsplitter was "reasonably" priced.

If you still want to experiment with beamsplitters, go for the rear
surface to see what you would be getting into, and disregarding the
double refections, if you still like it (with it's other limitations)
, spring for the Pentax. This way if you don't like it, you'll only
be set back a few bucks compared to several hundred.

>It does look like I'm going to get my big toe wet with a low-end beam 
>splitter!

Good idea, all things considered. But a cheap Realist would be better.

Gabriel filling in for Dr.T. (never thinking I would do that!)


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