Re: [photo-3d] MF vs. 35mm stereo

[Project3D@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 18/01/01 16:34:14 GMT Standard Time, drt-3d@xxxxxxx writes:

<< > I think that like everything else, it's a trade-off among price,
 > convenience and quality.  If MF cameras, film, processing and viewers
 > are scarce and/or expensive, any of those would be a "barrier" to
 > entry.
 
 Yes, but we are not talking about the average person.
 "Barrier to entry" is not an issue for people like myself,
 Linda, Mark Dottle or DrDave who do our own slide 
 mounting and have invested lots of money to enjoy a 
 better stereo image-recording and viewing experience.
 
 I would really like to know what is stopping Mark Dottle
 or other serious stereo enthusiasts from trying and/or 
 switching to medium format stereo.  Has it just not 
 happened yet?>>

I've just returned from a trip to Tunisia. I took my Realist 2.8 
and my Rolleidoskop.

The weather was pretty good and I was shooting 100 ASA in 
each camera. I shot 13 fims in the Realist and 6 films in the 
Rolleidoscop. I had plenty more stock with me, so why the 
discrepancy?

Well, it's just MUCH easier to shoot with the Realist - and I 
would suggest that the Rolleidoscop is the easiest of the 
MF cameras to use. I try to use a tripod with the Rolleidoscop.
I rarely use one with 35mm, so MF is much less convenient
for that reason as well.

I can project and scan my 35mm slides. Both are much harder 
with MF.

BUT for the slides that work, MF is EASILY worth the effort for
the hand viewing experience (in a Saturnslide viewer).

So the media are simply different. A few MF slides go a long way
with the hand viewer. I should be able to get that from my 6 films.

A ten minute AV sequence (I have two RBT projectors) will use
something like 60 slides - I should be able to g et that from my 
13 films

Bob Aldridge
Stereoscopic Society Projectionist