Darn.
The company just threw away several small Wild(Leica)stereo plotters.Could have
digitized
pictures
that way.
They now use a computer system were the user has on electonic 3D glasses and a light
source is
shot at the glasses.The air photo is brought up on the monitor and the operator sees
the
3D image and
does the stereo plotting that way.
Might be a bit on the costly side though.
Just a thought
Dave
>
> I tried scanning a slide pair and displaying them on a web page
> side-by-side. However, I lost so much detail when fitting them both on
> the monitor that I could not get the stereo effect. If anyone has any
> suggestions on this, I would love to hear them.
>
> Andrew Robinson
>
>
>
> Jim Apilado wrote:
>
> >There's a place in California, Reel 3D, that sells a lot of stereo related
> >items. For a few thousand bucks one can get an RBT SLR outfit. Two slrs
> >and mated together that have identical lenses on it (don't know if they are
> >interchangeable). I have seen one such camera outfit. It's a special order
> >item.
> >You can find Stereo Realists, Kodak Stereo cameras, and others on eBay. I
> >think these old cameras are easier to use than the mirror setup like the
> >Pentax stereo adapter. I have one and no longer use it because I have the
> >Realist and also do the side-by-side setup (ESII bodies).
> >Next July, the National Stereo Association is having its convention here in
> >Portland, OR. There probably will be dealers selling stereo outfits as well
> >as images.
> >
> >Jim A.
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: "D. Glenn Arthur Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 12:22:35 -0500 (EST)
> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Subject: RE: stereo wedding slides
> >>Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 12:22:35 -0500
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Well, if I wanted to do it for my clients would it be possible? I'd
> >>>have to find a lab, and a supplier of viewers I suppose.
> >>>
> >>>I thought I saw somewhere that there was a way to do it with a pair of
> >>>digital p+s, but how would you view it?
> >>>
> >>>tv
> >>>
> >>>
> >>The easy way is to get a 3D camera or a stereo adaptor. (Someday
> >>I will stumble across a Pentax stereo adaptor at a garage sale
> >>priced at a fraction of its worth, with matching viewer, and ...)
> >>I know some folks do the two-camera thing, and I was headed in
> >>that direction (planning to use matched Pentax H3 bodies) before
> >>I was given my Nishika. (Don't use the Nishika professionally;
> >>it's fun but not reliable. If you get a four-lens beastie, hold
> >>out for the Nimslo.)
> >>
> >>I've got ideas for how to cobble together a ViewMaster-like
> >>stereo slide viewer for pairs of slides (the Pentax viewer
> >>relies on having two half-frame images in one slide), but I
> >>haven't tried to build a prototype. Easier to deal with is
> >>to use print film.
> >>
> >>In addition to the (for now) option of getting lenticular
> >>prints made, there are stereo print viewers available. One
> >>design I've seen uses images that are offset funny:
> >>
> >>+----+
> >>| |
> >>| |
> >>| |+----+
> >>| || |
> >>+----+| |
> >>| |
> >>| |
> >>+----+
> >>
> >>and the viewer is this box with mirrors in it. A friend I
> >>don't see often enough (the one who gave me my first H3 in
> >>fact) uses that system, and I think he's got a template for
> >>printing the pairs off a computer from scans.
> >>
> >>Then there are the kits that look just like American Civil
> >>War era viewers, which the friend who shoots a whole lot of
> >>3D uses. Looks spiffy, works fine, uses straightforward
> >>side-by-side pairs just like the 3D photos that were shot
> >>during the Civil War. This is what I'd suggest as part of
> >>a wedding package, though I'm not sure how much they cost.
> >>The retro look of the viewer becomes part of the album viewing
> >>(and showing-off) experience.
> >>
> >>And there's a viewer that's a little harder to use, but is
> >>compact and cheap -- molded from a single piece of plastic,
> >>and about the size of a comb. No holder for the prints
> >>or rail to keep things aligned, but it fits in your pocket.
> >>I've got one of those, a gift from the friend who uses the
> >>kit-built viewer.
> >>
> >>What we're doing, since we use four-lens cameras, is to
> >>take the four frames of a shot, printed on two 4x6 machine
> >>prints with two half-frame images on each; snip the
> >>individual images apart with scissors; then paste the
> >>two images we want to use (usually the outermost pair if
> >>neither of those has the edge cut off because the frame
> >>size doesn't _quite_ line up with standard 35mm spacing)
> >>to heavy card stock with a glue stick. It would be much
> >>spiffier to have a lab print the side-by-side images on
> >>one sheet of paper and glue _that_ to the card, but it
> >>wouldn't work as a machine print. (And don't forget to
> >>reverse the order of the frames.) Printing from scanned
> >>images would be another tidy solution.
> >>
> >>I don't know what 3D cameras are still being made, if
> >>any, but apparently there are lots of used 2-lens, 3-lens,
> >>and 4-lens units still available. (Unless you want to make
> >>lenticular prints you only need two images.) I'll try to
> >>dig up my 3D photography bookmarks later, when I remember
> >>which computer and which browser I bookmarked them in. I
> >>don't recall whether any medium-format 3D cameras are out
> >>there.
> >>
> >>BTW, some 3D cameras have mirror setups inside to reverse
> >>the order of the image in the camera so that you don't
> >>have to do so in the darkroom or the viewer. The ones I've
> >>heard reviews of lose some image quality as a result,
> >>unfortunately, but I don't know whether that applies to
> >>all such systems.
> >>
> >>-- Glenn
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
