P3D Re: Beamsplitters

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> Beamsplitter results are terrible!  I have seen slides and prints. 

Beamsplit slides in realist-compatible format, or looking at the slides in
their "native" viewer (where the midline shadow/fuzzing_together
doesn't show)?

> The only way someone will be happy with a beamsplitter is if they have 
> never seen results from a real stereo camera.

"Happy" is relative.  I'm still happy looking at my old splitter
slides in the Pentax viewer.  Other formats can be better but
that doesn't make me unhappy with the other formats.  I've seen
large-film formats that makes any 35mm format look really poor in 
comparison, but that doesn't make me unhappy with 35mm film 
formats that I use!  Should it?

I've seen orchestra concerts in person, but I'm not unhappy with
my less good CD's at home.  It's not black and white.  It's not
a matter of happy/unhappy, it's degrees of happiness.

> A friend of mine (not into 3d) was reading a photography book written 
> in the 60s or 70s.  He told me that, according to the book, stereo 
> cameras are now obsolete because there are beamsplitters that one can 
> use in regular cameras and lenses and take advantage of modern camera
> automation plus get 2d or 3d pictures at will.  The concept is very
> attractive.  So why aren't more people using them?  

One reason could be that Pentax charges $350 for them.  

To be the devil's advocate, one also could say that there may 
be more people  buying *NEW* stereo adapters than the number 
of people buying *NEW* realist-format cameras from the major
camera producers.  So which is  "winning"?  :-) :-) :-)


Mike K.

> 
> -- George Themelis
> 
> 


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