Re: [photo-3d] Why MF and not LF?

["David W. Kesner" <drdave@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Talbot writes:

> One significant reason is that with images wider than MF
> 6x6, you cannot view stereo images without going to some
> sort of prismatic viewer design.

> And of course there are no readily available LF stereo
> cameras, whereas Sputniks are inexpensive and affordable.
> Twin camera MF stereo is also feasible with some MF cameras,
> but twin camera LF stereo would be far more cumbersome.
> 
> I've heard of folks who have done 4x5 and 8x10 stereo slides
> and viewed them on a lightbox with a View Magic.  Reports
> are that the results are fantastic.  But the obstacles are
> much greater, so even those who have tried it tend not to
> pursue it much.

This discussion was started when someone (Dr. T.?) stated how 
much "easier" and more "accepted" 35mm was over MF. Then 
others chimed in on how much "better" MF was over 35mm. I then 
chimed in on how LF should be better than either for the same 
reasons.

Now Paul and others have come back stating why LF is not as 
"easy" and "accepted" as MF and guess what - they are the same 
reasons given for 35mm over MF.

We have come full circle *{;-)

That's all for now,

David W. Kesner
Boise, Idaho, USA
drdave@xxxxxxxxxx