P3D Re: Truly immersive 3-D experience?

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dana Nibby wrote:
> 
> Has anyone ever photographed in a large enough slide film format to 
> produce a truly immersive 3-D experience - filling one's entire field of 
> vision?
> 

Well I don't know if it is truely fully immersive, but Medium Format
(MF, not manual focus) stereo photography definitely gives you a
bigger, higher resolution image.  Perceived viewing size depends on
the optics in your viewer.  (Someone will correct me if I'm wrong.  :)

MF stereo doesn't even have to be expensive.  For about the price of a
low-end Realist I started with a pair of Lubitels (really cheap
plastic Russsian TLRs), a flash bracket to mount them on and a double
ended cable release.  Others have twinned various older Twin Lens
Reflex cameras, and if you are handy you can even do some surgery and
join a pair of cameras into a single stereo camera.

Joel Alper's at Rocky Mountain Memories (see
<URL:http://www.frii.com/~rkymtmem/>) sells cardboard slide mounts in
various formats (6x6, 6x4.5, and even the 35mm mounts) and a hand
viewer kit produced by Alan Lewis.  You can also build your own viewer
from scratch.  I started with a fold-up cardboard viewer from a set of
computer generated stereo pairs.

MF stereo does have some drawbacks depending on your point of view.
First you use a hand viewer to see the results.  There are no stereo
projectors for MF, and the stereo mounts do not lend themselves to use
in twin projectors.  In a large group of people waiting for the viewer
to circulate around the crowd can be a drag.  The flip side of this is
that you could mount the stereo slides for projection in a pair of MF
projectors, but then you couldn't view them with a hand viewer.  Of
course hand viewing also means that it is easier to take your stereo
slides with you to show others.

Second, by their nature slides are originals.  There are no slide
duplicating films in 120 format.  That means that if you want to
duplicate your slides it will cost more (because it'll be done on a
4x5 flim and trimmed down).  Given that the slides will be viewed in a
hand viewer they will get scratched.  I think I can reduce the
scratching by changing how I present the slides.  From now on I'll try
not to let people change slides.  I'll put a slide in the viewer, pass
it around and change slides when it gets back to me.

Third, the most common MF film format (120 film) is only 12 exposures
per roll (in 6x6 format, 16 in 6x4.5).  220 film is 24 exposure, but
not all cameras can use it (especially those that use a red window on
the back of the camera to count the frame).  You'll change rolls a
lot, and this also discourages you from shooting "in camera
duplicates" (making a duplicate by shooting the scene more than once).
On the other hand this can be an advantage.  When I switched from 35mm
to 4x5 (and later to MF stereo) the fact that I had to change film
more often (and manually manipulate all the controls on the camera)
meant that I was more careful about what I was doing.

Finally, there is no commercial mounting service available, and you
can't just get film processing at the local one hour shop.  Mounting
isn't really a problem (for me).  The big images make it easy to
mount.  Film should be available at pro camera shops.  B&H Photo (ads
in most of the general photo magazines) and Calumet (1-800-CALUMET)
both stock all sorts of 120 format film.  Processing can be done where
ever the local pros (studio portrait and wedding photographers) have
their's done.  If you shoot B&W (for stereo cards or slides (you have
to do reversal processing to get B&W slides)) you can process your
film yourself.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Humans explore the Universe with five
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              |   senses and call the adventure science."
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | - Edwin P. Hubble


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