P3D The all-important format issue

["Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

While thinking of the recent 2x2x2 vs. 101x41 discussions I imagined
for a minute that print makers are laughing because they do not have 
a similar problem.  Keep the prints mounted in one card or keep them 
separate?  Who cares, right?  Or made two sets of prints...

Well... it is not that simple.  Imagine that you are expecting stereo 
prints from a friend for an informal critique.  To your surprise, you 
get Over/Under prints that need a View Magic viewer, while you were 
expecting the traditional Holmes prints.  You don't have a View Magic 
viewer (or you cannot find it!)  And you don't dare remove the glued 
prints to mount them side by side.  So, what do you do?

Recently, the previous editor of Stereoscopy was using quite a bit of 
"View Magic" pictures in his publication.  He got letter from members 
complaining that they cannot view the stereo pairs because they do not 
have a View Magic viewer and THEY CANNOT FREEVIEW OVER/UNDER PAIRS!!!! 
He defended the View Magic format with rigor but quit anyway.

This issue of the stereo format is unique in our hobby.  Different
formats require different viewing instruments.

Back to the 2x2x2 vs. 101x41 issue.  My good friend Boris Starosta
reposted his elaborate analysis of the Realist vs. Twin-Rig 
comparison.  Very good summary... even though I do not fully agree 
with the premise.  The title of the posting is "stereo slide format 
comparison" while what is presented is camera recording system 
comparison. Boris is very careful to outline the reasoning behind this:

>It is to be understood that the presentation format is not
>strictly dependent on the taking camera - however, a 35mm twin-rig 
>camera naturally lends itself to the production and post-processing 
>of 2x2 mounted slide pairs.

Except for dedicated 101x41 users like myself who insist in mounting
ALL their stereo pairs in 101x41 mounts to maintain compatibility
of presentation.

So, Boris' comparison is a mixture of camera systems and formats, 
under the assumption that most users of Realist format cameras will 
use 101x41 mounts (usually the case) while most users of separate 
full-frame cameras will use 2x2 mounts.  But what about those who use 
BOTH systems?  What will they use?  Why exclude any of the two?

How important is this issue?  With RBT mounts you can take the chips 
out and put them back, in a snap!  So, you can do your computer 
scanning, duplication, etc. and eliminate some of the disadvantages of 
using a "weird" format.  It is like having the prints temporarily 
mounted with little sticky tabs so they can be rearranged quickly at 
will.

About the issue that you cannot use portrait format with  101x41 
slides.  That's correct, but... You can mask the chips to produce 
portrait configuration in the 24 mm direction of the film.  If you are 
using full frame slides and you duplicate them, you can reduce them to 
maintain the aspect ratio and still use 101x41 mounts.  Boris' 
excellent show in the NSA convention could be shown mounted in 101x41 
mounts and reduced during duplication.  No one would be able to tell 
the difference because the final image will be projected at the same 
size.  The limitation comes from the aspect ratio of the screen and not 
the size of the image in the chip.

Not to mention that creative minds, like Shab Levy, have managed to
modify RBT mounts to mount full size portrait-oriented chips.  If
there is enough demand for these, I am sure someone will produce them.
(Steve Spicer maybe?)

George Themelis


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