"Stereo's Future" by Paul S. Boyer

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

A couple of minor points regarding Prof. Paul S. Boyer's lecture on
"Stereo's FUTURE" :-)

>Some amazing developments will
>be appearing soon.  Cameras will be lighter, some SLRs
>will dispense with the weighty pentaprism, and light-weight
>zoom lenses will have amazing ranges in focal length.

Hasn't this been happening for the last 50 years or did I miss something?

>Sorry to report that with all this technological ability, nothing
>is being applied to stereo.

So, what's new? :-)

>Another sad fact is that the proportion
>of slide film sold in the US has been steadily decreasing; 

So, what's new?:-) :-)

>I think that we stereo-enthusiasts
>should recognize that stereo for the foreseeable future
>will be strictly for tinkering hobbyists.

It has been like that for decades now...

>As one who is resigned to being a tinkering hobbyist,
>I think that our task should be to make stereo cameras
>with GOOD LENSES!  The Realist was great 50 years ago, but
>it's lenses are way below modern standards.

How do you define "modern standards"?  A few years ago I tried to buy a
modern P&S camera for my wife and had to return 3 of them because I was
comparing the results with a Realist (I was shooting slide film and taking
stereo pairs).  I figured that since I was paying more than a 3.5 Realist I
might as well expect to get as good results.  I finally kept the 4th but 
still could not match the Realist.  Main problem:  Distortion off center.

>The modern lenses are simply better.

If by "modern" you mean "modern SLR" lenses, then I'd say that your
statement is correct and that's not new but it has been the case for
decades now.  But my Realist for less than the price of most modern SLR
lenses gives me two lenses and a body.  And it takes stereo pictures!  And
the pictures are good!  They are not "way below modern standards".  They
are fine for my standards and taste.

>[Look at the way a Realist focuses!  The film is supposed to
>move in and out in back of the lenses!  Try watching that
>with a blank roll, and I think that you will agree with
>my decision not to bother repairing my Realist's rangefinder,
>because basically it is unnecessary when the focusing
>mechanism is so approximate, and one stops down for maximum DOF
>anyway.]

I do not agree with these observations.  The Realist focusing mechanism is
very accurate.  But how on earth you can draw this conclusion by simply
observing the film plane move back and forth?  I have used a 30x magnifier
to look at the image at the film plane while changing the focus and have
been very pleased with what I found.    Eric Goldstein has reported
shooting with wide aperture and making havy use of the rangefinder, with
excellent results.

>So, friends, keep on tinkering, and enjoy it; but don't
>expect any great general popularity of stereo in the coming
>decades.

Thank you Prof. Boyer!  I don't expect any miracles in the next few years
but I am sure neither did William Gruber in 1937 or Seton Rochwhite in
1942.  

Have a nice day!

George Themelis


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