Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D

Notice
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
<-- Date Index --> <-- Thread Index --> [Author Index]

[photo-3d] Re: Digital Cameras Cannot


  • From: matmail2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [photo-3d] Re: Digital Cameras Cannot
  • Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 01:08:14 -0000

--- In photo-3d@xxxx, Eric Miner <miners@xxxx> wrote:
> 
> See my comments following each of yours. I really don't want to 
>start a 'jiahad' over this issue. I see a place and use for each 
>media type. 

Without a doubt there is a place for both digital and film.  If my 
main interest was in producing prints I would probably already be 
doing most of my shooting with digital cameras.  I can see many 
advantages, especially being able to immediately preview my results 
in difficult lighting situations and then discard unsuccessful 
exposures without paying extra for them.

> >8) view transparencies in a viewer ( unquestionably the very best
> >viewing method stereo has to offer)
> True, but hard to share too..

Hard to share?  What about the NSA Stereo Theater?  While it's true 
that the sheer majesty of a good transparency is only apparent in a 
hand viewer, slide projectors do offer a method of sharing stereo 
imagery not yet equalled by any digital method I've seen.  This is 
why I'm not investing in a digital camera for the time being, and why 
I think numerous other stereo shooters are going to stick with film.  
You just can't beat looking at a good slide. (for the time being...)

>But, of course with an image editor you have vastly more
> control

Agreed, but with a high resolution scanner it's possible to get 
better results by scanning in a slide than any affordable digital 
camera can produce. Once the slide is scanned, all those digital 
image processing tricks are available.  Since the original is in the 
highest possible resolution it will be possible to take advantage of 
even better technology available in the future.


> >10) Perfectly synced pairs up to 1/500th sec.
> >(reason enough to ignore digital IMO)
> Given the capabilities of the newer models I don't think this 
>applies any more

I'm sure I'm not the only person anxious to hear which digital 
cameras consistently fire in sync at 1/500 when twinned.

Jim Harp


 

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