P3D Re: Sorry! and Is Tom wrong...? etc.

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:08:11 -0600
>From: "Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D Re: Sorry! and Is Tom wrong...? etc.

>John Roberts writes:

>>If someone had told me that the results might be "torture" unless  
>>I bought a Realist outfit right from the start, I might have been 
>>discouraged enough to not pursue the matter further.

>John, this might not have been your intention but you made it sound
>as if I suggested that unless someone buys a Realist right from start, 
>the results might be "torture".  I hope it is crystal clear that this
>is not what I am saying.  

Perhaps I misunderstood your use of the term. :-)

>1) Stereo cameras (not just Realist-type, you can include  Nimlso, 
>   Argus, RBT, etc.) are designed to take care of technical 
>   challenges by offering correct alignment, synchronized exposures, 
>   matching lenses, etc.

>2) Use and adaptation of mono systems in stereo, requires some
>   knowledge of technical issues, especially if slide film is used
>   (which because of its small size it is harder to align and
>   crop as it is with larger prints) and stereo projection is 
>   desired (projection is usually more demanding in terms of
>   alignment and it is done to be shared with an audience- usually)

Clarification: I do *not* recommend that novices start with a single 2D
camera and immediately start mounting for *projection*. Mounting for
projection is for a time when considerable skills have been acquired, because
it is the most exacting application of traditional 3D photography.

What I referred to is the first tentative steps in starting a hobby of
3D photography, when a person discovers "Wow - I can really take 3D
photographs myself!". I believe that building up a confidence that this
is indeed possible is a useful first step in deciding to go on to more
advanced techniques and the purchase of specialized 3D equipment. And
most potential 3D recruits already own a 2D camera, or they can buy a
disposable just about anywhere, and processing is extremely cheap and
easy and widely available. To make a chemical analogy, the option of
using 2D equipment lowers the "energy barrier" for the reaction to be
initiated, so the 2D techniques can act as a "catalyst".

Also note that I pointed out that my opinions on this matter were primarily
directed toward the millions of people who do not have easy access to a
stereo club and/or friends that are already involved in stereo photography.
There are multiple paths toward becoming interested in 3D photography.

>My posting was a reply to Bill Walton's message that stereo
>photography can be enjoyed without any worries about technical
>issues.  I am saying that some knowledge is required if your 
>tools are home-made.  That's a general statement and not an 
>endorsement for Realist-format cameras.  

Almost no knowledge is required to *start* - early efforts need not even
be mounted. As the interest in more advanced techniques and improved results
grows, yes - increased knowledge is both necessary and useful.

>Regarding your concern about "recruiting" new members into stereo, 
>I would say that what we really need is a new automatic, worry-free, 
>inexpensive and good quality stereo camera system... 

Yes - that would be great.

>but this seems 
>to be a dream in the very near future so we'll have to settle with 
>what we've got today...  

What *we've* got today is dedicated 3D equipment, both manufactured and stuff
we assembled ourselves. What most people have *today* is 2D cameras, which
they *could* use for 3D photography.

>As long as I know and I hear of people (in 
>photo-3d, for example) who are starting succesfully with widely 
>available and inexpensive 50s stereo cameras (just like I did 11 years 
>ago), I will continue to provide my own free "recruiting services" :-) 

That's commendable - please keep up the good work.

John R


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