[photo-3d] Re: MF vs LF

[Paul Talbot <ptww@xxxxxxxxx>]

"David W. Kesner" wrote:

> 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 *{;-)

David and I are apparently following different threads.
I'm sure that's my fault for being in digest mode.  To
clarify, here is the thread I was following:

Tom Deering:

> Example: For the cost of a nice RBT, you could pick up a Sputnik and 
> 500 rolls of film.   It is commonly available, without a prolonged 
> wait, and can routinely produce images that will leave RBT and 
> Realist owners in tears.

David Kesner:

> 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?

Paul Talbot and others replied (paraphrased):

| Viewing and shooting difficulties that do *not* arise in
| the jump from 35mm to MF *do* arise in the jump from the
| MF to LF.  Thus, MF is the largest practical size for stereo.

I don't see "accepted" mentioned anywhere, and the ease
or difficulty issues that arise in LF are simply not an
issue in MF.

I don't think anyone would dispute that LF stereo would be
"better."  But the reason it is rarely "touted" is that it
would be almost pointless to do so.

I hope this helps clear things up.

Paul Talbot