Re: [photo-3d] Digest Number 303

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

An interesting, and I believe, very valid viewpoint.  One thing you touched
upon that I think should be explored more fully, is the aspect of money, or
more specifically, affordability.

Many people think that because they can afford to just buy things ready-made
there is no reason for them to explore things that require a little effort.

Several years ago, I was on an audio tape "round robin" that included an
individual in England (the late, great Don Jeater).

Don reported on the stereoscopic activities of members of his stereo club.
Money was short, and a surprising number of these wonderful people were very
inventive (as was Don).  They designed and built most of their own
equipment, included some surprisingly automated stereo projection systems.
Instead of Stereo Realists, they often built their own stereo camera
devices.  These ranged from simple slide bars to rather complex arrangements
including beamsplitters made from ordinary window glass (NOT image splitters
that so many people seem to confuse with true beamsplitters).

I myself started as a child with a Sears Tower box camera, sliding it from
one side to the other of a tray I made for the purpose.  Later, I built an
image splitter which I put in front of my father's 8mm Cine Kodak movie
camera.

Quickly becoming dissatisfied with the "doorway" aspect ratio, I took the
unit apart and reconfigured the mirrors for "over-and-under" stereo.  This
worked quite well, and gave me a CinemaScope shaped picture before
CinemaScope.  Being stereoscopic as well, this was much more effective.

I am convinced that not having much money forces one to become inventive,
which often results in more interesting things than if you just buy
everything and use it in the way someone else wanted for you to use it.

Of course, if you have money, you should be able to do so much more with
your inventiveness.  Unfortunately, this rarely seems to be the case.

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Vaughan" <k0mz@xxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] Digest Number 303


> On the issue of the demise of stereo photography, we all probably have
> our own spins especially if we have been involved with stereo photography
> for many years.  It would be interesting to hear more personal spins
> posted on this matter especially from old timers.
>
> I have been playing with stereo photography since 1966 and all self
> motivated.  I learned to freeview simply because there was no other way
> to view my images at the time.  I developed my own cha-cha B/W negatives
> and printed stereo pairs onto a single piece of photo paper (still do).
> This required active participation in my hobby; I couldn't be spoon feed
> as there was no money for spoon feeding at the time.  No work; no
> enjoyment.  No stereo camera until about 1982 or so.
>
> Early on, people actively participated in their own entertainment.  As
> time went on the general public needed more spoon-feeding in order to be
> entertained.  As technology progressed, entertaining equipment got more
> sophisticated and less expensive enabling the entertained to have less
> required things to do to be entertained.  Listening to Hi-Fi required
> expert and careful manipulation of the individual Lp records.  Now, just
> load up a CD changer with over 100 programmed CDs.  Open reel tapes gave
> way to the easier cassette.  Home movies (old 8mm) used to require
> flipping the relatively expensive 16mm width spool of film in the camera
> for the other half of the carefully considered 5 minute shoot.  Splicing
> required coordinated care and expertise to put those 5 minute clips into
> a 30 minute silent film.  Now, just load up a video-cam and press the
> button for hours of mindless movement.  I am not advocating going back to
> 8mm Kodachrome movie roll film but I'm just using that as an example of
> what people had to do to have fun.  They had to work.
>
> So today, the general public wants more exciting things to be entertained
> with requiring less work.  Couch potato type people numbers seem to have
> grown since the 50s.  So it is not too hard for me to understand what
> killed (reduced) stereo that always required a certain amount of work to
> make it work.  Many people today with normal vision simply don't
> understand that they actually see their surroundings in stereo (what a
> gift) and don't want to be bothered with actually working to experience
> stereo views as they don't seem to know what they are looking for (by
> being dumbed down).  Further, even when they know what it is about, many
> simply don't want to go thorough the hassle (lazy).  Some think I am nuts
> with stereo photography.  But, I get very excited when that special
> curious someone can actively participate and work to experience stereo
> views when I am asked to explain my hobby as I introduce stereo
> photography to them.
>
> Well, that is my spin from 35 years of being nuts for working (being
> actively involved) to enjoy my hobby.
>
> Robert J. Vaughan
>
> On 15 Oct 2000 10:25:45 -0000 photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> > There are 16 messages in this issue.
> >      16. Re: Stereo Demise AND CONFUSION OF TERMS LONG POST
> >            From: Herbert C Maxey <bmaxey1@xxxxxxxx>
>  Stereo is no big mystery, what is the mystery is why
> > the
> > public cares not one whit about it.
> >
> > So, what are the reasons there seems to be a decline is Stereoscopic
> > Photography? Hard to say because it is a complicated issue. There
> > is
> > absolutely no reason why stereo could not be raised to a very high
> > level.
> > But it will not happen, because of some factors we do not
> > understand.
> >
> > Bob
>
>
>
>