Re: [photo-3d] Stereocard copying

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Herbert C Maxey wrote:
> Jim Harp wrote:
> >>With a quality scanner you will have more control and possibly
> >>more resolution than copying to sheet film, and I'm sure it would
> >>be less expensive, especially getting prints made.  Stereocards
> >>are ideal for digital retouching, since there's usually a
> >>"back-up" of any damaged image area available to clone from.  My
> >>opinion is that you should scan at the highest resolution that
> >>yields meaningful detail, since future printing technologies will
> >>certainly be able to print at higher resolutions than what's
> >>currently available.
> 
> I think digital should be used if you just want cheap copies to send
> to friends and family, but if you are serious about the best
> possible quality, sheet film is the best way to go. It is costly,
> granted, and it will cost more, but the results are worth it in the
> long run. You mentioned 8 x 10, overkill from my perspective. You
> can make spectacular copies on a smaller format. Personally, I have
> always used 4 x 5 not 8 x 10 because of cost. And I have copied
> thousands of old photographs.
> 

Quentin mentioned that he intends to make full size copies of multiple
cards per 8x10 sheet and then use contact printing to make the (full
size) duplicates.  If he were to make the copies with 4x5 film he
would only get one card (not at full size) per sheet and would have to
enlarge the final print.  He also mentioned that he has access to a
graphics arts copy camera and film.

I agree with Bob that doing this via the 8x10 copy camera and contact
printing will yield superior results to using most digital equipment.
Unless you use a drum scanner (something you probably don't want to
(or maybe even can't) do with 100 year old stereocards) you're not
going to get the best scan possible.  Due to it's large size (an 8x10
sheet is about equivalent to a 13 inch TV screen in size, almost 60
times more area than a 35mm frame) sheet film has more useable
resolution than any but the most expensive digital camera backs.  The
4x5 scanning backs match (or maybe even exceed) 4x5 film, but they
cost more than $10,000 (not including the dedicated computer or the
4x5 camera and lens) and still don't hold a candle to 8x10.

Quentin also hit upon the fact that in some cases digital is a false
economy.  When discussing digital imaging costs people (especially
those of us already online and reading email lists and USENET and
working on computers as a hobby) tend to forget the costs of getting a
computer and software, researching the imaging hardware and software
and actually learning to use it all even before the costs involved in
any particular project.

Besides the 8x10 negatives can always be scanned later for making
digital copies, and will contain more resolution than you need for a
full size stereocard reproduction.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"