Re: [photo-3d] Re: Next step from Realist?

["don lopp" <dlopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As reguards large forma stereo I dont beleive there is any ortho way to view
it M F is easily viewed ortho . Realist can not be viewed ortho in any
viewer that I have seen. The same is true of  V M the low resolution of the
film is a major problem Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "David W. Kesner" <drdave@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] Re: Next step from Realist?


> Tom Deering writes:
>
> > An RBT is a fine camera for some people, but it is hardly the only
> > choice for serious stereographers.
>
> I agree with this. As is the case with ANYTHING - there isn't
> one do-it-all that can please everyone. Specific situations
> require specific equipment.
>
> However the 35mm RBT stereo camera is the closest thing to a
> do-it-all you can get. If it were priced somewhat less (ok, a
> lot less) I don't think anyone would still be using a Realist,
> or Kodak, or Belplasca for that matter.
>
> As for the argument of medium format being so much better - if
> that is the case then why isn't large format being touted as
> so much better than MF?
>
> I do think that the quality and immersive experience you get
> with viewing a MF slide is superior to 35mm and I plan to
> start as soon as I can afford the equipment. For now I have to
> be satisfied with mounting and viewing other's images.
>
> However, I won't get rid of my RBT as I got rid of my Realist.
> The RBT did everything the Realist could do so much better
> (except being used as a weapon in bar fights). This isn't the
> case with a MF setup - it can't do everything the RBT can.
> There will definitely be a place for both in my stereo bag.
>
> That's all for now,
>
> David W. Kesner
> Boise, Idaho, USA
> drdave@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>