Don't let your girlfriend do this! (picture attached)

DrTebi

DrTebi

Slide Lover
Local time
10:27 AM
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
306
Location
San Francisco, CA
View My Gallery
Just for fun, I am posting a nice shot I just re-discovered.

I gave my girlfriend this stereo camera as a birthday present two years ago. On a trip to Yosemite I shot some of the exact same scenes she did; later when looking at mine and then at hers (through a stereo viewer) I was quite astonished. The third dimension can be really impressive, suddenly my pictures appeared flat and meaningless... well, at least for the moment.

sofia-shooting-stereo.jpg
 
interesting stereo camera - can you share some details?
With the advent of stereo TV, it will be interesting to see if stereography takes off, given the trend to view images on monitors/iPods etc. Me, I prefer traditional prints.
 
lynnb said:
interesting stereo camera - can you share some details?
With the advent of stereo TV, it will be interesting to see if stereography takes off, given the trend to view images on monitors/iPods etc. Me, I prefer traditional prints.
Click to expand...

Really good point. I haven't been to a 3D movie since the 50s, but it does seem to capture people (today). So do we finally get a 3D software upgrade for our DSLRs, and does that finally come with a small program to let use see them on our monitors? The Japanese will do anthing to 'add' something to their equipment, so I guess it is possible.
 
@Lynn:
Here are all the glory technical details about the camera:
http://www.stereoscopy.com/cameras/kodak.html

I got the camera through Craigslist, I think I paid $70 (including a light meter and a bag). It's a bit hard to get the exposure right, since there is no built-in light meter, The camera has a slider to set the film speed, and once that is set, it corresponds to a scale that basically only says "bright" "hazy" and... I think "low light" or something like that.

Focusing is done in a similar way: You can turn a ring on the lens (which moves both lenses, of course) and there are markings for "Portrait" "Group" and "Scene".

You actually must shoot slides if you want to use one of those viewmaster like devices to see the images. The two frames need to be cut out and mounted into a special mount. When looking through the finder, it's interesting how you can "adjust" the white balance by pointing the viewer at different light sources.

The effect 3D is fantastic, and I love how detailed the images look. And that's where I think analog stereo photography will always beat digital photography... there are no pixel restrictions other than the film itself (density, grain count, what do you call it?). If the film details are approximately 6 megapixels (which I think film can easily achieve), then you actually see all those "pixels" all at once... while on a monitor screen, even HD only gives you about 2 megapixels (1920×1080).

Well, 3D is an interesting topic I think, sorry for posting that here on the Leica M8 forum--but the image of her was taken with my M8 🙂
 
During the Tour de France stage on TV last Sunday I saw a press photog sitting on the back of a motorcycle shooting with a "double barrel" DSLR. A camera with two identical lenses attached. Never seen anything like that before.
 
stereo rules! i've been using a stereo realist and a belplasca with K64 and Velvia 50 for many years. i actually made the leap backwards to a mono Leica years after learning photography via stereo. i will admit that since my mentor died last year, i haven't been able to pick up any of my stereo cameras to shoot. every time i try i realize that it's just too soon...

anyone interested in getting into stereo should follow that link to stereoscopy.com listed above. there is a pretty big learning curve, but once you really understand how to mount the slides, the pictures are worth it! you don't need a $4k zeiss either, you can buy a stereo realist f3.5 for under $100 and a viewer for about $75. the simple slip-in mounts are cheap and easy to use too.

bob

ps--here is a link to the latest digital stereo from Fujifilm. i have played with one, but i have to admit that it just doesn't do it for me. once you've seen a Kodachrome through a really good stereo viewer, digital screens are a joke in comparison!

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/3d/camera/finepix_real3dw1/
 
I only have scans of our first test roll. The scans are pretty bad and the images quite meaningless... Now the other difficulty is viewing them on a computer screen. The only thing you can try is to use the "cross-eye" technique (see here for more info: http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase/ihelp.html). Anyway, here is a link to the picture:

http://tebert.com/dump/58010002-stereo.jpg

You may be best off downloading the file, and resizing in PS or similar to a manageable cross-eye view size...

We don't bother scanning these images in anymore. They look great through the viewer.

And I have to disagree with Bob a bit... I didn't find the learning curve to be very steep, and I think even through a cheap $7 viewer the images already look amazing. Certainly there is much room for improvement, but our setup (camera, two viewers, mounting frames) was less than $100 and we are quite pleased.
 
Holga?

Holga?

I seem to recall seeing an add for a stereo Holga in the last year or two (I can't remamber where it was.) Might be interesting to play with.
 
DrTebi said:
And I have to disagree with Bob a bit... I didn't find the learning curve to be very steep, and I think even through a cheap $7 viewer the images already look amazing. Certainly there is much room for improvement, but our setup (camera, two viewers, mounting frames) was less than $100 and we are quite pleased.
Click to expand...

the learning curve i'm talking about is mounting slides expertly. once you've looked at 50 or more stereo slides in slip-in mounts you start to get a headache because your eyes are constantly adjusting to converge the two images. getting good at mounting takes a long time, it took me about 10 years! and if you plan to do projection you have to be really good at it.
i'm convinced that poor stereo mounting is what ultimately killed stereo in the 60s. funny thing is that Kodak still offered it as a service as late as 2000!

bob
 
KenR said:
I seem to recall seeing an add for a stereo Holga in the last year or two (I can't remamber where it was.) Might be interesting to play with.
Click to expand...

the problem with these holga gimmicky stereo cameras is that they dont take any real care to match the focal length of the lenses. but then Leitz never did either. i've never seen a perfectly matched pair of lenses in the leica stereo attachment.

bob
 
I have a kodak stereo I got off craigslist ( along with a voigtlander prominent for $25). I've been meaning to try it out. I still need a viewer, anyone know which ones are the best quality?
 
lisa said:
I have a kodak stereo I got off craigslist ( along with a voigtlander prominent for $25). I've been meaning to try it out. I still need a viewer, anyone know which ones are the best quality?
Click to expand...

scroll down on this page to the Combi, it's about as good as it gets. the channel viewer near the top is great if you don't wanna spend $1k for a viewer, but i like having a proper light source instead of pointing the viewer at a light source.

http://www.stereoscopy.com/3d-concepts/viewers.html

you can also buy a stereo realist 'red-button' viewer. they are great viewers and fairly cheap, $50-100. avoid the white button models, they're singlet lenses and pretty crummy. avoid the gold button viewers too. they're for the realist macro and will not work well with regular stereo slides. also avoid the realist green button viewers, i have never used one i liked.

or you can get a kodak stereo II viewer. they're cheap, the lenses are great, great interocular adjustment, easy focusing and most of them come with an electrical connector and a rheostat to adjust the light. if you end up liking the kodak, you can order a set of beautiful achromatic doublet lenses from Edmunds for $160. the kodak II with Edmunds lenses almost best the Combi.

bob
 
scroll down on this page to the Combi, it's about as good as it gets. the channel viewer near the top is great if you don't wanna spend $1k for a viewer, but i like having a proper light source instead of pointing the viewer at a light source.

http://www.stereoscopy.com/3d-concepts/viewers.html

you can also buy a stereo realist 'red-button' viewer. they are great viewers and fairly cheap, $50-100. avoid the white button models, they're singlet lenses and pretty crummy. avoid the gold button viewers too. they're for the realist macro and will not work well with regular stereo slides. also avoid the realist green button viewers, i have never used one i liked.

or you can get a kodak stereo II viewer. they're cheap, the lenses are great, great interocular adjustment, easy focusing and most of them come with an electrical connector and a rheostat to adjust the light. if you end up liking the kodak, you can order a set of beautiful achromatic doublet lenses from Edmunds for $160. the kodak II with Edmunds lenses almost best the Combi.

bob
Click to expand...

great. Thanks for the info. I've been trolling ebay here and there, but wasn't sure what to buy. This helps a lot. The combi is out of my price range for now, so I'll probably try to pick up a kodak II, but at least I know what to go for if I decide to upgrade one day. 😀
 
DrTebi said:
I only have scans of our first test roll. The scans are pretty bad and the images quite meaningless... Now the other difficulty is viewing them on a computer screen. The only thing you can try is to use the "cross-eye" technique (see here for more info: http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase/ihelp.html). Anyway, here is a link to the picture:

http://tebert.com/dump/58010002-stereo.jpg

You may be best off downloading the file, and resizing in PS or similar to a manageable cross-eye view size...

We don't bother scanning these images in anymore. They look great through the viewer.

And I have to disagree with Bob a bit... I didn't find the learning curve to be very steep, and I think even through a cheap $7 viewer the images already look amazing. Certainly there is much room for improvement, but our setup (camera, two viewers, mounting frames) was less than $100 and we are quite pleased.
Click to expand...

The cross eyed technique is not the only way. I have a computer screen type stereo viewer and it images beautifully large stereo pairs and has done a great job for many years. I have a 32 inch wide screen and it actually looks very good. Give it a try and you might decide to lose the small stereo viewer. I know I did after 30 years of straining at 35mm stereo pairs.
 
Last edited:
There is definitely a knack to unassisted stereo viewing. With me it's a struggle but a neighbour of mine was in aerial reconnaissance for some time in the 50's and 60's and he still finds it effortless after years of looking at aerial surveillance pictures.

I occasionally shoot a couple of rolls of stereo using a home made 'twin rig' of two Olympus XA1 cameras on a common baseplate. The shutters are wired externally to a pushbutton.

Novelty soon wears off though I find.

http://fourthirds-user.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/14415]


There is an excellent program for making stereo pairs available on free download

http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/stphmkr/index.html
 
Last edited:
costly threads

costly threads

Aaargh! I hate you all....

Reading this thread made me have a quick look on the 'bay, and I found this:-

Ran a film through it, not had chance to faff with all the scans yet, but here's one you can look at if you've got red/cyan specs:-

(stereo pair here.)

Now I just need to acquire the mounts and a viewer and start shooting slides in there...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
Interviewing Jason Schneider, Part 1
Replies
3
Views
926
markjwyatt
markjwyatt
Back
Top Bottom