P3D Re: Snapshooting and Realist vs. SLRs

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)]

>Boris writes:
>
>>I have agreed with Dr. T. that for
>>snapshooting, the Realist is better.
>
>Can we please define "snapshooting" here?

Groan.  Not unless I want to give up my day job.

>
>>So, if a novice wants to pay some $250 for the Realist system, as
>>presently available, they can approach the quality of the 2x2 format.
>
>...while being severely limited on subject matter... At least I would be
>limited, and so would our friend X... and your typical "snapshooter", i.e.

I'll let people who have twinned small, fully automatic point and shoot
cameras reply to this.  Although I shoot with SLRs, others can get full
frame 35mm slide pairs with point and shoots, if they like.  (Of course,
now we will have to reopen the debate on f.l., NOT!)

>Realist has succeeded, no matter what you guys say... Even Mike Watters...
...
>AND... Boris is using the same system too!!!  He admitted having mounted
>some of his slides in EMDE mounts and viewing them in a "Realist" viewer
>and sending them to be judged with "Realist" hardware.  HE has seen the
...
I mount Realist because I want to compete. 90% of the competitions accept
only Realist format mounts.  I never said that Realist was not the default
(or most successful among enthusiasts).

I said it has failed with the general public, and I've tried my best to
indicate why I think so, and why I think it is a poor format for
introducing people to stereo.

I do look forward to your red-Button viewer, George.  Thank you.





Boris Starosta

usa 804 979 3930

boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.starosta.com
http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase

"The cut worm forgives the plough."
-Blake

Please send no unsolicited images or executables.  Thanks.  All
product names mentioned in this post are used for identification
purposes only, and may be trademarks or registered trademarks
of their respective companies, and the exclusive property of their
respective owners.



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