Re: [photo-3d] Digest Number 471

["Colin Edwards" <c.r.edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi All,
New member but have been a stereo fan man 'n boy for 50 years I guess.
There is a lovely example of lunaration on
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
Today!
Regards
Colin

----- Original Message -----
From: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 17 February 2001 10:35
Subject: [photo-3d] Digest Number 471


> There are 13 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. Making a Stereomonscope or iconoscope
>            From: "Franklin J. Flocks" <fjf@xxxxxxxxx>
>       2. Re: Making a Stereomonscope or iconoscope
>            From: Peter Davis <pd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>       3. Re: Shutter on Wollensak 10?
>            From: cfholzner@xxxxxxxx
>       4. Re: Re: Shutter on Wollensak 10?
>            From: Peter Davis <pd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>       5. Re: Cha, Cah, Cha?
>            From: William Gartin <william_gartin@xxxxxxx>
>       6. full format with image splitter?
>            From: "Michael Galazin" <rexlion22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>       7. Re: my first stereo photos
>            From: "Robert J. Vaughan" <k0mz@xxxxxxxx>
>       8. Re: macro slide bar?
>            From: William Gartin <william_gartin@xxxxxxx>
>       9. Re: Re: My very first stereo picture
>            From: ka2hsu@xxxxxxxx
>      10. Re: Shutter on Wollensak 10?
>            From: "Ray Moxom" <raymoxom@xxxxxxxxxx>
>      11. Re: full format with image splitter?
>            From: "John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>      12. My very first stereo picture
>            From: Pixschack@xxxxxxx
>      13. My very first stereo picture
>            From: Pixschack@xxxxxxx
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
>    Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:00:13 -0800
>    From: "Franklin J. Flocks" <fjf@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Making a Stereomonscope or iconoscope
>
>
> Many people on this list are probably familiar with the Bi-lens viewer
> made by (I think) Sawyers that was designed to allow viewing of a single
> flat 35mm slide with both eyes - This viewer has two eye holes and looks
> very much like a stereo viewer - I've have seen them sold on Ebay for
> less than $20.  - If you chop off the end that holds the slide with a
> hacksaw and remove the lenses - you have a viewer that lets both eyes
> see exactly the same thing- I have done this and it works great.
> Its a very strange effect - because when you view solid objects with
> both eyes, you expect to see 3D - and this thing makes everything look
> flat - in a way that viewing with a single eye does not.
>
> (By the way, I made this viewer by accident - my original intent in
chopping
> the thing up was to produce a device that would make anaglyphs - I had
> planned to put a filter over each eye hole - and shoot from the other
> end with a mono camera - but it didn't work - when viewing from the "slide
> end" - the holes at the other end appeared very small. )
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
>    Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:39:00 -0500
>    From: Peter Davis <pd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Making a Stereomonscope or iconoscope
>
> At 10:00 PM 02/16/2001, you wrote:
>
> >Many people on this list are probably familiar with the Bi-lens viewer
> >made by (I think) Sawyers that was designed to allow viewing of a single
> >flat 35mm slide with both eyes - This viewer has two eye holes and looks
> >very much like a stereo viewer - I've have seen them sold on Ebay for
> >less than $20.  - If you chop off the end that holds the slide with a
> >hacksaw and remove the lenses - you have a viewer that lets both eyes
> >see exactly the same thing- I have done this and it works great.
> >Its a very strange effect - because when you view solid objects with
> >both eyes, you expect to see 3D - and this thing makes everything look
> >flat - in a way that viewing with a single eye does not.
>
> Interesting idea.
>
>
> >(By the way, I made this viewer by accident - my original intent in
chopping
> >the thing up was to produce a device that would make anaglyphs - I had
> >planned to put a filter over each eye hole - and shoot from the other
> >end with a mono camera - but it didn't work - when viewing from the
"slide
> >end" - the holes at the other end appeared very small. )
>
> This does make a good viewer for anaglyph slides!  I shot some slides with
> a Vivitar Q-dos lens, and put them in this viewer.  Looking with the
> red/cyan glasses, you really do get 3D.  It better than a print, but still
> not as good as a "real" stereo pair.
>
> -pd
>
> --------
>                                  Peter Davis
>                   Funny stuff at http://www.pfdstudio.com
>                   "The artwork formerly shown as prints."
>             Resources for children's writers and illustrators
>                     http://www.pfdstudio.com/cwrl.html
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
>    Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 03:40:39 -0000
>    From: cfholzner@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Shutter on Wollensak 10?
>
> --- In photo-3d@xxxx, Peter Davis <pd@xxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I just received a beautiful Wollensak 10.  It looks practically
> new, and it
> > a gorgeous cameras.  The only problem is ...
> >
> > the shutter doesn't work.  I can wind the advance knob until it
> stops, cock
> > the shutter,
>
> The shutter should cock on the film wind, if it doesn't the linkage
> is in the bottom of the camera.
>
> >and press the shutter button.  The frees the advance knob to
> > wind again, but the actual blade don't appear to open.  Am I
> missing
> > something?  Is there some trick?  I've tried a few different
> speeds, like
> > 1/2, B and T.  Something else I should know?
>
> It does sound like the shutter doesn't work.  Pushing the shutter
> release does two things; it starts the shutter timer and releases the
> winding, each at a different level of the push and the order depends
> on who adjusted it last.  If you are pushing it all the way down the
> shutter should fire.  I think it is jammed.
>
>
> >
> > Also, I'm curious about the lenses.  The frontmost ring on each
> lens barrel
> > unscrews.  However, on the left lens, it's just a metal ring that
> comes
> > off.  On the right, the whole lens unscrews and comes out.  Was
> this some
> > mechanism for adjusting for focus differences between the lenses?
> I don't
> > get it.
>
> Not a differental focus adjustment..  The outer ring is there to hold
> series V filters in.  You could take them off and not affect the
> camera operation.  On the right you are taking the lens apart.  On
> the right side, hold the second ring and unscrew the outer ring, then
> tighten the second ring good and put the outer one back on, not as
> tight.
> >
> > Any other good Wollensak tips or pointers?
>
> They are great cameras, I hope you get yours working.  Jess Powell is
> suposed to be good at fixing them.  (530) 666-5334
>
> Chuck Holzner
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
>    Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:50:25 -0500
>    From: Peter Davis <pd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Re: Shutter on Wollensak 10?
>
> At 10:40 PM 02/16/2001, you wrote:
> >--- In photo-3d@xxxx, Peter Davis <pd@xxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > I just received a beautiful Wollensak 10.  It looks practically
> >new, and it
> > > a gorgeous cameras.  The only problem is ...
> > >
> > > the shutter doesn't work.  I can wind the advance knob until it
> >stops, cock
> > > the shutter,
> >
> >The shutter should cock on the film wind, if it doesn't the linkage
> >is in the bottom of the camera.
>
> Perhaps it does.  There is a lever at the bottom in about the same place
as
> the Realist's shutter cocking lever.  Is that for double exposures?
>
>
> > >and press the shutter button.  The frees the advance knob to
> > > wind again, but the actual blade don't appear to open.  Am I
> >missing
> > > something?  Is there some trick?  I've tried a few different
> >speeds, like
> > > 1/2, B and T.  Something else I should know?
> >
> >It does sound like the shutter doesn't work.  Pushing the shutter
> >release does two things; it starts the shutter timer and releases the
> >winding, each at a different level of the push and the order depends
> >on who adjusted it last.  If you are pushing it all the way down the
> >shutter should fire.  I think it is jammed.
>
> I'm pushing it as far down as I can.  I also tried a cable release, which
> can really push.  I hear a faint sort of clicking sound, but the shutter
> leaves themselves don't move.
>
>
> > > Also, I'm curious about the lenses.  The frontmost ring on each
> >lens barrel
> > > unscrews.  However, on the left lens, it's just a metal ring that
> >comes
> > > off.  On the right, the whole lens unscrews and comes out.  Was
> >this some
> > > mechanism for adjusting for focus differences between the lenses?
> >I don't
> > > get it.
> >
> >Not a differental focus adjustment..  The outer ring is there to hold
> >series V filters in.  You could take them off and not affect the
> >camera operation.  On the right you are taking the lens apart.  On
> >the right side, hold the second ring and unscrew the outer ring, then
> >tighten the second ring good and put the outer one back on, not as
> >tight.
>
> Yup.  I guess I just had the ring on too tight.  I thought it was a little
> weird.
>
>
> > >
> > > Any other good Wollensak tips or pointers?
> >
> >They are great cameras, I hope you get yours working.  Jess Powell is
> >suposed to be good at fixing them.  (530) 666-5334
>
> Thanks.  I'll give him a try.
>
> -pd
>
>
> --------
>                                  Peter Davis
>                   Funny stuff at http://www.pfdstudio.com
>                   "The artwork formerly shown as prints."
>             Resources for children's writers and illustrators
>                     http://www.pfdstudio.com/cwrl.html
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
>    Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:23:02 -0600
>    From: William Gartin <william_gartin@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Cha, Cah, Cha?
>
> on 2/16/01 3:26 PM, Dr. George A. Themelis wrote:
>
> > distracting and annoying most of the times (there are some glowing
> > exceptions but they are exceptions, not the rule).
>
> You've piqued my curiosity on the retinal rivalry topic,  so I went back
and
> took a look at the "Creating Ice Effect" and "Motion Disparity" (making
city
> lights twinkle) messages from last month. Could you discuss some of the
more
> interesting exceptions, for future experimentation?
>  --
> William Gartin <william_gartin@xxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
>    Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:28:27 -0600
>    From: "Michael Galazin" <rexlion22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: full format with image splitter?
>
> Hi gang,
>
> Are there any 35mm cameras built with a wider format than 36x24....say,
> about 50x24 or even a72x24?  If such a camera (perhaps built with panorama
> shooting in mind) had a splitter attached to the front of the lens, one
> could obtain pairs of realist format 24x24 or perhaps even full format
36x24
> shots, through a single lens.
>
> Another possibility: What would happen if one attached a splitter to a
> medium format camera, then trimmed the top and bottom of each frame to
> create the above format stereo pairs?
>
> I've just been curious about these possibilities.  Seems like a more
> efficient, (mechanically) more trouble free, and possibly less expensive
way
> to go than an RBT camera.  What do you think?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike Galazin
>
>
> Shop online without a credit card
> http://www.rocketcash.com
> RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
>    Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:18:27 -0600
>    From: "Robert J. Vaughan" <k0mz@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: my first stereo photos
>
> What an interesting thread.  Let's have more of these interesting
> stories.  My first stereo photo was made of a pipe organ April 1967.  I
> was about 12 feet away from the hundreds of pipes and what an experience
> of depth.  I used a Bolsey on a tripod, measured and shifted the legs 3"
> and made the cha-cha pair in my parent's home.  I printed the pair in my
> beginning darkroom, and learned to freeview as that was the only way to
> view my pictures.  I used cha-cha for many years until in 1982 I found a
> Kodak stereo at which time interest in stereo became exponential.
> Robert J. Vaughan
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
>    Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:41:24 -0600
>    From: William Gartin <william_gartin@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: macro slide bar?
>
> on 2/15/01 11:54 PM, John Toeppen wrote:
>
> > The answer is all too simple: a slide bar was used.  The camera was
> > not "toed in" (towed in, toad inn?)-- coverged.  The image shows
> >
> "Toe Din": the sound of a thousand people tapping their toes on aluminum
> bleachers in a concrete auditorium.  ;-)
>  --
> William Gartin <william_gartin@xxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
>    Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:40:28 -0500
>    From: ka2hsu@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Re: My very first stereo picture
>
> Here is another first stereo picture for the archives.
>
> I bought my Stereo-Realist in March 1952 just before I left Boston MA on
> a business trip to Rangoon, Burma. My first picture en route was of a
> clocktower overlooking a canal in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The buildings
> are slightly overexposed and the flower stalls in the foreground are
> slightly underexposed but the colors of the flowers are still brilliant.
> Bob Vaughan is probably the only other person on this list who has seen
> it.
>
> During the summer of 1951 I was a member of an engineering educational
> mission to Japan with 14 other faculty members from universities around
> the country. One had taken along a Stereo-Realist, while I had a
> nondescript single lens camera that over-exposed everything. Several
> months after we returned, he gave us a show of his gorgeous and exciting
> slides and I was hooked.
>
> I've never used anything else since then.
>
> Rogers Finch
> New Jersey
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
>    Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 15:54:10 +1100
>    From: "Ray Moxom" <raymoxom@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Shutter on Wollensak 10?
>
> > There is a lever at the bottom in about the same place as
> > the Realist's shutter cocking lever.  Is that for double exposures?
>
> Yes it is for double exposure.
>
> You can also use the shutter cocking lever to check if the problem is the
> shutter or the 'shutter cocking when winding on' mechanism that is giving
> you the problem.
>
> The sticking shutter is likely to be due to lack of use and the camera
> probably just needs a clean and lube.
>
> The Wollensak 10 is one of the better stereo cameras of the '50s. My
> understanding is that the f2.7 Wollensak Amaton lenses are the superior 4
> element 'Tessar'  type lenses whereas the f3.5 Wollensak Amaton lenses
used
> on the sister Revere stereo camera are of 3 element 'Cooke' type design.
It
> does seem strange that two different lens designs would both be called
> 'Amaton'.
>
> Has anyone checked a f2.7 Amaton lens with a laser (counted reflections)
or
> dismantled the lens to verify this? At any rate the Wollensak 10 gives
very
> acceptable images.
>
> Ray Moxom
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 11
>    Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:07:49 -0800
>    From: "John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: full format with image splitter?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Galazin" <rexlion22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "P3D mail list" <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 8:28 PM
> Subject: [photo-3d] full format with image splitter?
>
>
> > Hi gang,
> >
> > Are there any 35mm cameras built with a wider format than 36x24....say,
> > about 50x24 or even a72x24?  If such a camera (perhaps built with
panorama
> > shooting in mind) had a splitter attached to the front of the lens, one
> > could obtain pairs of realist format 24x24 or perhaps even full format
> 36x24
> > shots, through a single lens.
>
> Interesting concept.  However, good quality panoramic cameras are often
more
> expensive than an RBT, and would produce a left-right differential in
terms
> of image shape due to the geometric distortion of the short focal length
> lenses they are usually equipped with.   Some of the travelling shutter
type
> (with-or-without moving lens) panoramics have less distortion, but would
> present problems with moving subjects due to the time difference as the
> shutter travels across the scene.
>
> > Another possibility: What would happen if one attached a splitter to a
> > medium format camera, then trimmed the top and bottom of each frame to
> > create the above format stereo pairs?
>
> It works, I have tried it.  But not without trade-offs.  You have half the
> angle for any particular focal length lens, which means that you want a
> shorter focal length.  But, medium format lenses tend to be a longer focal
> length for corresponding field coverage (a normal lens on a stereo camera
> would be 35mm or 40mm focal length; a normal lens on a medium format would
> be around 100mm).  A 50mm lens on a medium format is considered to be a
> rather short focal length, a super wide angle, and will show some
left-right
> edge barrel distortion, as well as being very expensive.
>
> An RBT would still produce better results, and at less cost than a medium
> format with a similar complement of lenses.  I think you would even prefer
> the results you would get with a regular stereo camera, such as a Realist.
>
> If, after this, you still want to use an image splitter, be sure it has
high
> quality coated front surface mirrors.
>
> JR
>
> >  I've just been curious about these possibilities.  Seems like a more
> > efficient, (mechanically) more trouble free, and possibly less expensive
> way
> > to go than an RBT camera.  What do you think?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Mike Galazin
> >
> >
> > Shop online without a credit card
> > http://www.rocketcash.com
> > RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 12
>    Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 04:16:36 EST
>    From: Pixschack@xxxxxxx
> Subject: My very first stereo picture
>
> In a message dated 2/16/01 5:34:07 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
> > My very first stereo picture
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 13
>    Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 04:22:37 EST
>    From: Pixschack@xxxxxxx
> Subject: My very first stereo picture
>
> My first stereo shots were scenes of San Diego.  I had just purchased a
brand
> new Pentax beam splitter after spying it in a little catalog that came
with
> my Pentax ME SLR.  It was 1981 and the thing went for a whopping $59 at
the
> local camera store.
> I was thrilled with the results but not entranced with the format.  It
took
> another 6 years for me to discover a Kodak stereo at a camera swap meet.
> Then there was no turning back.
>
> Gary Schacker
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>