Re: [ARSCLIST] Slides and inconvenient media (was spin it again)

[Don Cox <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/04/07, Steven C. Barr(x) wrote:


> My father (who was a bit of a "photography nut" in the days when he
> had money) also owned one of these "stereo" cameras. As I recall, the
> make was Stereo Realist...and the format simply paired two standard
> 35mm slide images using a "dual slide" mount. They could be projected,
> but NOT in 3-D...and NOT by standard slide projectors.

They can be projected in 3D if you use polarizing filters and glasses,
with a silver screen. Kodak used to make a rigid screen which was
perfect for 3D (it was actually marketed for daylight viewing).

A stereo projector is convenient, but a pair of ordinary projectors can
be used. There are racks for mounting Carousels one above the other, for
tape-slide work.

Actually, stereo 120-size slides give better results than 35mm - the
"cardboard cut-out" effect is reduced. 
 
> However, the images, when properly viewed (as with ViewMaster 3D
> "discs" and old double-picture "stereographs") certainly add to their
> impact!
> 
> We're still waiting for an image/viewer format that will allow the
> display of true 3D images on existing computer monitors...!

Such things existed 20 years ago, when interlaced TV monitors were used
for computers. The alternate fields were used for left and right images,
with a pair of synchronised shutter glasses.

As with using polarized light, the problem is that image brightness is
low.


It is odd that "stereo" for images means having depth, from near to far,
while "stereo" for audio means having width. All visual images have width,
while few audio recordings have depth.

Regards
-- 
Don Cox
doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx