P3D Re: it's too easy, what's wrong?

["Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>There is no need to mount manually only if you accept the quality of the 
>commercial mounting.  Most people who do 2x2x2 projections (as Tom 
>indicated he is interested in doing), do remount their slides.

Let me clarify this:  The recommended way for using twin camera systems
is with the axes of the cameras parallel to each other.  This sets the
stereo window at infinity.  Such slides need to be remounted to set the
proper stereo window. Also, with commercial mounting in cardboard mounts
I would expect that there will be some vertical misalignment which, even
though it might be acceptable for viewing with a cheap hand viewer, it
might not be acceptable for projection.

Now, regarding the stereo window comment, if someone does not get it
or agree, they might make one of the following two statements:

1) What is the stereo window?
2) I know what the stereo window is but I think you are worried too
   much... My stereo slides look fine even without the "proper" stereo
   window... And, what is the "proper" stereo window anyway?

Regarding statement #2, it is up to your level of expectations.  That's
what I tried to explain to Tom.  Perhaps, now, as a beginner, his level
of expectations has not reached the concept of "proper" stereo window.
Which is fine.  Things might be different later.  It took me a year or
so to realize what the stereo window is and how it is controlled.  Once
I reached that state of understanding, my expectations from stereo images
grew higher, to the point on no return.  Nothing turns me off faster,
than seeing projected slides with improper stereo window.  Not to mention
seeing an entire show in NSA with the window at infinity and beyond
(the show with the steam boats in Rochester).

So.... why should I have the slides from my twin SLRs commercially 
mounted in 2x2 mounts if I am going to remount them anyway?  And
why remount them in 2x2 mounts when I can remount them in 101x41 
stereo mounts and use my best Realist red button viewer to view them?
And why go the twin Ektagraphic route when I only project for small
audiences and I now own a Brackett Dissolver? :-)

BTW, it is nice to see that Bob Brackett, who a few years ago made
the statement that "Realist format" (meaning 101x41 stereo frames)
is dead and 2x2x2 is the future, is back to the drawing board, 
designing a NEW stereo projector for the "Realist -101x41- stereo
format"  With RBT in Germany, Spicer in Australia, Brackett and
Golden in the USA, the 101x41 format is hanging well... and the
future looks promising.

And, PLEASE, don't make unrelated statements like "no one will ever
design a Realist-format camera", "full-frame stereo is the future",
"twin cameras have many advantages", etc.... because this is not the 
issue here.  The issue is this:  Which format is better or has more 
advantages, the 101x41 or the 2x2x2, and why?  That's the issue that
Tom brought up.  It is a matter of how you mount your stereo slides,
NOT how you record them.

Happy Orthodox Easter Weekend! -- George Themelis


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