P3D Re: New Member sends greetings

[Linda Nygren <lnygren@xxxxxxx>]

Dr. George A. Themelis wrote:

> >Are the slide cameras and viewers 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 also agree that the cost of a good used Realist or other 50's stereo
camera is definitely worth it, and also I think the cost of a Red Button
over an inexpensive viewer is also worth it once you have seen both.
Still cheaper than many quality point and shoot zooms.

> >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...
I would disagree here, in that the popularity of *home movies* in the
late 50's and early 60's seemed to really edge out stereo as the new
"realism in photography" gimmick, at least in the eyes of much of the
population. The old photo magazines seem to reflect this in their
increased coverage of movies over stereo as the 50's stereo boom faded.
-Linda



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