P3D Polarizing problems

["mikael.anjou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <mikael.anjou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mr. Maxey asked about polarizers and stereo cameras. I have a few different
cameras: Realist, FED BOY, Super Duplex and VM Personal. Now how many
filter size conversion ring sets do I need to keep down my costs for
polarizers?
None.
I use a single polarizing filter with a 82 mm thread. Awkward to hold, yes.
Technically perfect otherwise, since it covers the two taking lenses as
well as the viewfinder and any rotation is absolutely identical for all
tree eyes - what I see is what I get.
When I use paired mono SLR cameras I surrender and screw in a pair of 52 or
72 mm polarizers, that is what my manual Nikon lenses require. I have to
judge the visual effect in the viewfinders.
On paired TLRs it gets a bit tricky, since I need two cooriented sets of
double, coupled polarizers. Such things have been made by Minolta and
independent filter makers. If you cannot find (or have the money to buy)
them you need four identically oriented polarizers in correct bayonet size
wich is even worse!
For a year I used an old Contax with Stereotar c (a metal holder with two
very good lenses, giving two half frames on a standard 24x36 slide). The
lenses were so close to each other that a 40,5 mm filter covered both. And
it could remain there also when the heavy prism "beamsplitter" (it is not,
stictly speaking) was mounted. Of course the viewfinder gave no information
on the visual effect of the filter, the old Contaxes were rangefinder
cameras.
And, speaking of age on the list...I am 43 years old, and took my first
stereo pair with a single Rolleiflex E 2.8 about thirteen years ago.   Many
years later a photo fair gave me the opportunity to watch a stereo slide
show and ever since ... you guess the rest. Standard stereo syndrome.
Stereopsis gravis, or whatever...
Mikael Anjou,
Sweden



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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 3017
***************************