P3D slides vs prints

[Dylan The Hippy Wabbit <spacey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Xochi wrote:-

>  I've noticed with some print anaglyphs I've seen that the 3-D effect
>  is fairly lousy. Objects/people look like cardboard cutouts placed at
>  different intervals into a scene. Very unrealistic effect. Do stereo
>  prints in general suffer from this defect?

>  Are slides the only medium which give photographs convincing 3-D
>  effects, like with viewmasters? If so, then I'm really not interested
>  in prints. I'm really taken with the 3-D effect viewmasters offer;
>  example: in a thrift store, I picked up a batman viewmaster with
>  a Batman Returns reel and was blown away by the picture where batman
>  is climbing a ladder, and a cone of light is coming out of the wall
>  at you.

Welcome to the list Xochi.

You narrowly missed a big discussion of that cardboarding effect.  On the
whole it seems to be a resolution thing.  Low resolution blurs over the
fine detail which is required for subtle points like, say the distance
from a nose to a forehead.

Prints, being second generation copies, are more prone to this sort of
problem than slides.  Good prints should be more than adequate though.  As
for the anaglyphs, well they've been messed with so much along the way
it's a wonder you can see anything.  You may have guessed that I'm not
keen on anaglyphs.  ;-)

As always you get more resolution from bigger negs/slides.  If you like
the Viewmaster then the Realist that people keep recommending should
really blow you away.  I say should, I've never seen one myself.

Some people on the list are shooting slide pairs on medium format, and I'm
*really* jealous.

A search for 'cardboarding' on the archive should get you much more
detail.  (Assuming some stroppy bugger hasn't demanded its removal-
GRRRR!)

Dave Spacey

______________________________________________________________________________

Walk tall, walk straight,
Spit the world right in the eye.

-Kevin Godley and Lol Creme


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