P3D Re: info needed for new 3D camera

[aifxtony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Tony Alderson)]

>George Themelis wrote (digest 2859):

>... (deleted)2. Interocular distance (distance between the
>lenses)...(deleted)...<

Well, it's pretty rare that I get to nit-pick the good doctor, but this
happens to be a pet peeve of mine, and I coincidentally happen to be
working on an animation for my web site to illustrate just this point.

But if you will check your dictionary, you will find that "interocular"
means the distance between EYES.  The distance between lenses of a stereo
camera is the "interaxial." The only time "interocular" is appropriate to
inanimate objects is the distance between eyepieces; that is, one might
talk about the spacing between the eyepieces of a stereo viewfinder to be
an "interocular", but the spacing between the taking lenses is the
"interaxial." I don't consider this to be a trivial distinction, the
different terms underline the very important differences between vision and
photography.

Along with this thread, I'll just add that my favorite stereo camera is my
Wollensack 5P. After I acquired it, I sold my (exceptionally sharp) 3.5
Realist. I've got a Verascope F40, and while I appreciate the versatility
of 7P, the Verascope is clumsy and not well engineered, IMHO. Maybe when I
start making money again, I can try one of Dr. T's 7P Realist conversions,
and retire the F40. I also have a Hyponar/Exacta for macros, a Viewmaster
Personal, a Teco-Nimslo, a Nikon FM for slide bars, a Pentax beamsplitter,
and I think a non-functioning Coronet somewhere. (And several computers at
the office, but that's "mostly" for movie work...) Someone recently asked
"if you could only have one stereo camera, what would it be?" Well, one
stereo camera would be better than none, and I got along for quite awhile
with just a Realist, but really, owning just one stereo camera would be
like having only one ukulele. The more you get into it, you find you need
different cameras for specialized uses. And the longer you do stereo, the
more opportunities arise to acquire those specialized cameras at more or
less "reasonable" prices.  (Maybe I should mention I got my first Realist
over 25 years ago...I used to envy the "old-timers" in SCSC and all the
great equipment they got at such low prices, now I find I've become an
"old-timer")

Anyway, I see little prospect of a mass-produced modern stereo film camera,
for the reasons George has listed, altho' a stereo digital camera might
eventually happen. In the meantime, our old cameras are not an unreasonable
trade-off. If you really can't stand the antiques, you might consider the
Teco-Nimslo; it's light, handy, has a built-in meter and can be adapted to
macros.  But it's better to make stereo with whatever you've got than
agonize over some unattainble perfection.

Tony "web site coming real soon now" Alderson
aifxtony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



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