P3D "Realist" vs. 2x2x2 systems

[Michael Watters <mwatters@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George T:

>If a person in not interested in advanced stereo projection
>(dissolve, autofocus, automatic feed, etc) then 2x2x2 loses
>a good part of its attraction.

I don't know about that.   The main appeal of wider formats for me (7P and 2x2) is
just that, the WIDER format.  I don't like the relatively narrow image the 5P
"Realist" format forces you to use.  If one is shooting with a wide-format camera
you can crop to any width you like 8P down to 4P (and I have done so), but
5P leaves you little room.  It's a matter of preference.  I tend to like wide pictures over
narrow ones.  Shooting full-frame also makes you compatable with every other camera
on the face of the earth.  Lots easier to get prints if you want that, have places run prints
off your slides etc etc.  It's just plain handy.

>in the USA.  Bob Brackett once predicted that 101x41 will
>soon die and be replaced by 2x2x2.  By the looks of things,
>this is not going to happen any time soon in the USA.

It would likely die a lot sooner if Kodak killed their mounting service.  Convenient
machine mounting is what kept me shooting 5P as long as I did.  I think what George
said about the availability of cameras is also true though.  As long as the 50's cameras
are easily available at cheap prices (it would be impossible to build a comperable
camera  to compete price-wise with a used Realist or Kodak) it's gonna be hard to
move the old-guard away from 5P.  A lot of the newer people are starting with twin-35
though.  There needs to be more support of that format in the US for it to build more of a 

following though.

mike


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