Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D
|
|
Notice |
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
|
|
P3D Re: New Member sends greetings
- From: fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis)
- Subject: P3D Re: New Member sends greetings
- Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 13:55:12 -0400 (EDT)
Warm welcome to another photo-3d member: paa5402@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>the only way you can make your own viewmaster pics is by cutting
>them with a machine that hasn't been made for forty years. Is this true?
If you use a View Master (or similar format) camera then you need the
corresponding cutter to punch out the little film chips. The cutters
went out of production when the cameras did and equal numbers of both
must have been made but they are more difficult (and expensive) to find
cutters in the used market because many of them were thrown away by people
who did not realize that you need the cutter in order to use the camera.
>May get into the more expensive prints and cameras eventually, but
>it sounds like an expenive and complicated hobby.
In the era of point and shoot cameras and drug store film processing
it might sound complicated but it is not that complicated. Perhaps
the least complicated way to start is using slide film and have Kodak
mount your Realist format stereo pairs. That's what made the system
popular in the 50s.
Stereo is not necessarily more expensive than flat photography (even
though it could be...)
>Are the slide cameras and viewes worth the extra expense?
There is no such thing as "slide cameras". A camera that takes 35 mm
film can use either print or slide film. From the camera standpoind
it does not make a difference. The difference comes after you shoot
the roll and are done with the camera... Extra expense? There is no
extra expense. I started with a $85 Realist and a $3 viewer.
>I still don't understand why 3D picture taking supposedly went out of
>style when the movies came in.
That argument has been used for the era of stereo prints going out
of style in the 1920... Not for the Realist era of the 1950s. Why
did it go out of style in the 50s? Too complicated might be one
part of the answer...
>Looking forward to years of enjoyment, and good advice from the
>subscribers to this group.
You are in the right place! Welcome again!
-- George Themelis, photo-3d welcome wagon
------------------------------
|