Re: [photo-3d] Stereo Camera Builders - Attention!

["David Lee" <koganlee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>  Although I am not currently building any 4x5 cameras, you may be interested
> in some things that I have done in the past.

I am always interested in what other people have done in the past and are
doing. I'd rather not re-invent the wheel when I can be out making images.

> Sinar made some interesting bellows configurations that were quite useful
> for stereo.  One was even dual chambered.

I have done stereo with bellowed cameras, but I decided to draw the line at
using 2 of them at the same time. Too much weight and hassle. The cameras I
am using are dedicated to one lens, Schneider Apo-Symmar 120mm (matched at
the factory in Germany). As such they are simple wooden boxes with one end
that accepts film holders (held on by an elastic strap) and the lens board
at the other. The lenses are focused by means of 3 spring-loaded nuts and
bolts and can be focused from 5 feet to infinity.

> I usually would mount lenses in barrels to lens boards, as these were
> smaller in diameter than when mounted in conventional leaf shutters.  Then I
> would either use a focal plane shutter (ala Graflex), or a single
> behind-the-lens guillotine type shutter that would travel past both lenses
> simultaneously.  These can be homemade, are reasonably simple (either single
> or dual blade), and solve the problem of synchronism.  They can be gravity
> drop type for slow shutter speeds, and spring augmented for higher.  If you
> want to get fancy, they can be solenoid operated.  And, since the blades are
> so large, it is easy to mount contacts on the edge outside of the image area
> for flash sync.

All of these sound too complex for me to build, and anyway, I mostly use
very long exposures (several seconds to several minutes), so synch is not a
problem using a dual cable release.

> Figuring 150mm to 180mm as being "normal" 4x5 lenses, 120mm is not too bad
> for stereo, many subjects of which benefit from a slightly shorter focal
> length.  I actually prefer even wider angles myself, and used to use a pair
> of 100mm Schneider Super Angulons for many subjects, although I did a few
> scenic hyper views with a single camera and a 360mm Symmar, which is a
> fabulous high resolution lens.

I would love to have all of these lenses, but I know that the ones that are
farther from normal can quickly get into the thousands of dollars. As it was
the 120mm's were $1500 for the pair. I have found the 120mm's to be a good
compromise giving me a slightly wide view, and cropping down to 2"x 2" gives
me a slighly long view. Adding a pair of 210mm's would give me enough
variation without breaking my bank account. (Isn't it terrible that we have
to consider the cost of these things.)

> Incidentally, before the turn of the second previous century (it used to be
> easier to say "turn of the century"), only cameras larger than 8x10 were
> called "large" format, 8x10's were medium format, 5x7's were called "split"
> format, and 4x5's were "small" format, or sometimes "Quad" format, from an
> 8x10 plate being quartered - you got 4 plates from one 8x10, if you were
> handy with a glass cutter in the dark.  Things change.

Yes, they do, and as film gets more fine grained and lenses get more
refined, many would say that "large format" (4x5 or whatever) is entirely
unnecessary, and I would have a hard time arguing with them. However, my
arrangement gives me the convenience and resolution I could not get in
medium format without spending at least $4000 (darn those economic factors
again).

> Wish you the best in your project.  I hope that I have the time and money to
> get back into large format someday.

Thanks.

Those receiving my monthly stereo cards will get to see an example of this
camera's results in the next week when I get the February card in the mail.

David Lee


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/