Re: [photo-3d] Bob logic BOB'S REBUTTAL

[Herbert C Maxey <bmaxey1@xxxxxxxx>]

> Bob, do you realize that a still camera be it an SLR
> or what ever was designed for still shots, but have
> been used very successfully in movies MANY times (such
> as The Matrix".  And of course those one lens cameras
> weren't designed for 3-D use nether, but many of us
> used them for that all the time.

I know that. I use a SLR for Stereo Photography all the time. I just used
it this morning, as a matter of fact - a nice little galena specimen
photograph. I do not have a macro stereo camera so I have to. My SLR and
my M3 / Visioflex are not stereo cameras. Incidentally, a remember
reading that a Nikon was modified for "Raider's of the Lost Ark" (or one
of those movies) to act as a movie camera for some of the tunnel shots?
You got me on "The Matrix", however - how was it used? Do you mean those
multiple cameras used to freeze action? 

Actually, there are many things to consider here. The folks that research
and develop color films or anything else for that matter, do so
presumably so the final result is as good as it can be for the intended
use. Eastman Kodak's line of "Vision" Motion Picture Films are
specifically designed for the needs of the motion picture photographer -
not the needs of the still photographer. Can it be used successfully?
Most likely, yes. (FYI: There are many different films named Vision. No,
I will not run them down here. For anyone who is interested visit
kodak.com, and search for "Vision".)

Is it the best? No, it most certainly is not. Still films are designed
for the still photographer and everything that is in that chain, from
exposure to processing to printing. Remember, printing materials and
processing is very different. For example, Motion Pictures are not
printed on paper, they are printed on release stock. MP Films are
designed for this type of printing, and it is doubtful if the
manufacturers concerns are for the Still Photographer.

> Just because something wasn't designed for something
> doesn't mean it can't be used for it.  You seem to
> keep giving advice to people on this list on subjects
> that you know little from experience, and a lot from
> assumption.  

True.....but why? For me, photography is important and I will always try
to use the best materials and tools I can. I do not use motion picture
stock for one simple reason: It is not the best material to use. 

As an aside, why not use Kodachrome for Movies? Many of you know I am a
Kodachrome nut and find it hard to understand what it is not used more
widely by the stereo community. Here again, Kodachrome is not the best
choice for motion pictures. 

As for my advice, Yes - I freely offer it, and I comment on other advice
if I see that something is ill advised. Such as using cheap film,
processing and printing. If you want to go through each point you think I
am wrong about, I'm game. However, I will most likely give you back a
novel sized reply. Am I an expert on all things photographic? NO WAY.
However, I have spent more time in this game than most on this list and I
have watched photography degrade over the years, with all types of nut
bar comments, ideas and suggestions being thrown around. I have seen the
results of proper photographic practice and much I see today falls short.
I was shooting professionally and running a processing lab while still in
high school, and I have seen plenty of silly ideas and notions over the
years. Good photography comes from using the proper materials and paying
attention to details.

>I am not asking you to stop, as it is not
> my place.  I just find it bothersome that you keep
> giving wrong advice based on guesses, and are probably
> confusing people.  I am sure you have an extensive
> background in photography, but if haven't actually
> tried something, why tell people it is no good.  

True again, go ahead and tell me I am wrong and I will bite the bullet.
But you need to prove it. Give me specific examples and I will answer
them.

In this case, please do a little research and tell me I am wrong. Films
like these have been sold to the gullable for years - more than twenty I
can recall. The benefits claimed are that prints and slides can be made.
Well, folks, I have some very exciting news for you: Slides and prints
can  be made from Kodacolor as well. From the above comments, I suspect
that this is a revelation. Labs sell this stuff because it is a cheap way
to sell photography. A large spool of Vision is cheaper than a large
spool of Kodacolor - If Kodacolor was readily available in lab spools or
cores to be re-spooled by a lab. 

If you shoot Vision Stock and I, Kodacolor, and assuming the printing is
competently done, I will beat you hands down on lots of technical points.


> That doesn't really help anyone.  There are more than
> enough people on this list that have tried just about
> every type of film, and every camera out there to
> answer from experience.

I know that - and the final result is that as far as film goes, there are
very few choices when it comes to motion picture film. More than a few
times, folks have mentioned hot great high speed film - pushed no less
gives you great stereo. Balderdash, you gain grain and loose sharpness.
Go ahead and shoot what you want - be it Fuji or Kodak, and do so using
any camera you want. Hell, none of my business. However, when you wonder
why the other fellas images are crisper, sharper, have better contrast,
don't look to their film choices being re-spooled films such as Vision.


> I decided that I don't like Kodachrome as much as
> provia 100F by actually shooting many rolls of similar
> subjects within similar conditions and comparing them.
>  I have seen the new vision film used for stereo
> slides, and even though it is not as good as shooting
> real slide film, it isn't bad.  

So you admit it. How can you chastise me for commenting on the use of
re-spooled motion picture stock and then admit that it is not as good as
shooting real slide film? My comments were simply that Vision was a MP
Film and there were better films for stereo. Especially if using color
negatives. I can make the comments I made without looking at samples. I
already know what I will be seeing. 

Have I tried all of the various films out there for Stereo Photography?
Nope - it would be wasting my time, because I can already see the results
in my mind's eyes. 

>The person asked what
> to do with an already shot roll of neg film.  It
> really is his only affordable choice.  Telling him not
> to use it because it wasn't meant for that is silly. 
> Dale and some other labs make slides from negs for
> still shots by the tens of thousands a week.  It does
> work.

Yes it does work, but I still KNOW that there are better ways. As for
affordable - well, we all have a budget, but if one looks around they can
find alternatives. Sorry, but I do not work in a world where the cheapest
has to be the guiding rule. Plenty of labs in the world make decent color
transparencies from negatives, and they do so using materials designed
for that specific application. As for the comment that some labs prints
tens of thousands per week - so what? What does quantity have to do with
anything. I am sure these labs that offer this to the public do so
without the public understanding that there is a better way. 

Sorry for the Novel, I will shut up now! 
Cheers,

Bob