|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Fuji 3D camera
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 12-03-2010 12:00 PM
Jonathon, if you knew me better, you'd know that when it comes to the history of stereophotography, I strive to be 100% accurate 100% of the time.
I've heard that the percentage of stereo (3D) views of the Civil War was upwards of 80%, but chose the more conservative 70% figure, based on the information provided by the Center for Civil War Photography.
You can even consult the two volumes of Civil War stereoviews produced by photographic historian Bob Zeller, "The Civil War in Depth." on page 18 of the first book, he writes of the 1863 catalog of Alexander Gardner:
"Of the 572 photos listed for sale in Gardner's catalog, 407 were stereo views...By the war's end, his catalog listed more than 1,400 stereo views."
Stereo cameras of the era weren't of the 8x10 wetplate variety, but rather cameras using smaller (4x10") plates, built for the purpose of capturing 3D.
BEHOLD! THE GREAT GREAT GRANDFATHER OF THE FUJI W3!
Any questions?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan Smith
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 201
From: Youngstown, OH
Registered: Jan 2010
|
posted 12-03-2010 12:10 PM
Yeah, what about Matthew Brady?
He didn't even accept the wet plate process, opting instead for the older, more hazardous, slower (speed of material and speed of developing images wise), but higher quality Daguerrotype process. (Film users today are like the modern day Daguerrotypists.) The reason Brady's images have been preserved so well is that, during The Great War (WWI) the brilliant intelligence of the U.S. army discovered many of the non-Daguerrotype images Brady was forced to use (again, read this as a modern day equivalent of a hard drive) and used them, scraping off the emulsion, to make GREEN HOUSE SHINGLE GLASS ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
If 3D photography really were that prevalent (and I'm certain it wasn't, you'd be lucky if it were 30%, it was all for nought, as I haven't seen a single stereo image from the civil war. They're all I guess left eye or right eye images.
Really, looking at this objectively, I'm sure it was used as an upsell. "Hey soldier, you and your men can be seen in 3D for just a couple of bits more!"
"No thanks, we'll just take paper prints. We don't have a stereo viewer. . ."
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 12-03-2010 12:19 PM
It is a fact that most of the more famous photographs attributed to Mathew Brady were originally stereos, as surviving cards exist. Also, keep in mind that his catalog consisted mostly of the work of other photographers in his employ, including Gardner, until he went out on his own.
You can continue to believe your 30% figure (which I am sure is something you just didn't make up yourself ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ), but I have offered sources to substantiate my assertions, including the two aforementioned books, currently resting on my lap, containing hundreds of select 3D images.
While it is also a fact that the vast majority of people did not get stereo portraits taken of themselves, it is equally true that the Holmes stereo viewer was a ubiquitous fixture in many homes' parlor rooms, often with a wide selection of commercially produced stereo cards. It was the television of its era.
And just so you can finally say you saw some 3D civil war photos, here is a listing from The Library of Congress.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 12-03-2010 01:50 PM
Manny, if it's anything like the previous model, the W1, it does have a lenticular screen on the back.
Not sure about the W3, but the video mode on the W1 appeared choppy to me, so I think I would much prefer a more dedicated 3D video camera, when a reasonable one becomes affordable, along with a good 3DTV. But I agree that there is so much going on with this, I'd rather wait for the dust to settle and see what (if any) survives.
EDIT: You found it before I posted my reply! You're in the great majority, but those wedding couples I've shot greatly prefer my 3D images over their regular albums. And since shooting my own personal pictures in 3D since 1998, the 2D doesn't quite do it for us anymore.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-30-2010 06:02 PM
3D home photography has had fans for decades -- Hillary's Stereo Realist being one of the most popular cameras, but there have been others, my Nimslo and 3D-35, all using 35mm film.
My best friend's dad had one as far back as the early 50s and took hundreds of family pictures which he showed in 3D with a Realist 3D projector, a silver screen and of course the polaroid glasses. Yes, I know, many of you whine about having to don glasses (going to the beach must be a chore without sunglasses), but then my buddy's family and mine must have been different -- none of us kids or adults ever seemed to be bothered by the glasses as it got us to see those great pictures with depth. We loved it when he broke out the gear to put on a show for us.
Home 3D has been around for a LONG time and it isn't going away. Once lenticular processing became available, we didn't need the projector any more and could get the best pictures printed so you could see them in 3D sans glasses.
And of course with digital, the lenticular process can be applied to any screen surface behind which the images can be sliced L/R, L/R etc. and aligned under the lenticular screen. They are already talking about that process being applied to hand-held devices like ipods, ipads and smart phones. So for those who seem to be not only indifferent about 3D, but actually feel the need to denegrade it as being a fad which you hope will disappear sooner rather than later -- not gonna happen.
If you think 3D still photography has a following which you don't understand, I guess digial 3D home video will REEEEALY annoy you:
So might as well get used to it because evidently, no, it will NEVER end.
Hillary, do you process any of your shots lenticular (it is fairly expensive)? Do you have a good processing lab?
Don't be a 3D hater.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 12-30-2010 10:12 PM
quote: Frank Angel
Hillary, do you process any of your shots lenticular (it is fairly expensive)? Do you have a good processing lab?
Frank, the two images from the Realist aren't enough to make a good lenticular print. Intermediate images would have to be synthesized from the L/R pics, increasing the cost. However, I have found a printer who can make nice lenticular enlargements at reasonable prices. I'm thinking of having a regular 2D pic converted and printed by him in the future.
So far, I've not found anything that matches the impact of the Realist slides in the red button viewer. Yeah, I'm still shooting slides. My last roll of Kodachrome 25 is still at Dwayne's. I sent it out two weeks ago so I'm not terribly worried about it getting done. And now I'm shooting E6 and keeping my fingers crossed that the local lab keeps its processor for a while longer.
Though the viewer is probably the best, I do enjoy doing 3D slide shows. And yeah, I love the whole polaroid glasses and silver screen thing. Below is a pic of a show I did for a family reunion. Because of the vintage stereo slides they found, I was able to help some long-gone family members appear to be there with them. You can see my old TDC projector in the background.
And Frank, you might enjoy (and identify with) this vivid recollection of enjoying 3D slides in the 1950s.
"...In the winter they hosted parties where they would project their slides; the kids sitting on the floor up front and the parents comfy on furniture in back and everybody wearing cardboard glasses. These shows were a lot of fun, not only due to the interesting subject matter but for the unusual 3-D effect. As the images clicked by, Stella or Em would narrate and tell us what we were seeing and who was in the picture. If you've never seen well-shot, well-projected 3-D pictures, it's quite an experience. We would look at the pictures and feel like we could step right into the screen and stand in front of the Eiffel Tower, or walk through the gates of the newly opened Disneyland. The pictures made quite an impression."
I'll be doing two more 3D slideshows in January. The audience reaction is always enthusiastic. But for the internet, ancient anaglyph is still the easiest to share (for now). Not sure if I posted it before, but this is one of the most fun of my 3D pics, the T-rex from the NY Museum of Natural History:
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
That's because I didn't have the images properly scanned, but rather just held up my little P&S digital camera to the eyepieces of the viewer. If not done 100% dead on, I get some distortion. Or there might be some rotation between the images I wasn't able to correct at the time. One or both of those is what's happening here. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic