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

[Project3D@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 19/01/01 06:16:50 GMT Standard Time, Paul Talbot quoted me 
with:

 > 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?>>

And then added:
 
<< I'd suggest one reason is that you don't have as much experience
 with your relatively recently acquired Rolleidoscop as you do with
 your old friend the Realist.  When I started in MF, I did so with
 a pair of Richoflex TLRs on a home-made bar.  (Equipment cost to
 get started was much less than with a Realist.)  But I'm famously
 un-handy, so my bar wasn't very good, and the alignment hassles kept
 me from going far into MF 3D.  After using the rig on a trip to Bryce,
 I went about a year without touching MF 3D again.  Then I borrowed a
 tuned-up Sputnik, shot a few rolls in the Canadian Rockies, and after
 seeing the results decided to purchase my own Sputnik.  After finally
 building a SaturnSlide viewer, I was able to appreciate even more the
 advantages of MF 3D, and was drawn more and more deeply into it.
 
SNIPPED
 
 So getting back to your Realist and Rolleidoscop, Bob...it would
 not at all surprise me to find you reporting two years from now
 that your Rolleidoscop is getting a much heavier workout than it
 did in Tunisia!>>

And I reply:

Well, I actually think you are wrong! You see, our objectives are different!

I've always shot in "sequence mode" NOT "single image mode"

I think MF is great for creating stand-alone images. But it's just too 
difficult to project as a sequence. I wish it were not so. Maybe I'll get a 
second Rolleivision 66 MF projector. Maybe.

But I already have all the equipment needed for dissolve AV shows with 35mm 
using my RBT projectors. And it's hard enough transporting all the gear for 
that! MF AV shows would be near to impossible to set up anywhere than in a 
dedicated theatre.

And then, when you consider the smaller resolution needed for moving versus 
slill images, the resolution of 35mm for dissolve AV shows is adequate. Of 
course, MF would be MUCH better. But compromise, sadly, is in favour of 35mm.

Oh, and I have no problem operating the MF camera, but I find that the 
reduction in depth of field - aperture for aperture - that 75mm lenses give 
relative to 35mm lenses means that I have to use a slower shutter speed on 
the Rolleidoscop than I should. And the tripod is inconvenient when I'm 
travelling. I suppose I could use 400 ASA film, but that's another 
compromise, isn't it...

Which is why I am unlikely to ramp up my MF output... Oh, I'll still be 
shooting MF - with my twin Hassleblads, or with my Sputnik, or my 
Rolleidoscop. But 35mm will still be my main format!

Bob Aldridge
Stereoscopic Society Projectionist