Will we ever get back to 3-d images and viewing? (Page 4): This is one of my 3D cards. You need to have a stereo-opticon viewer like in the old days. But then the experience is worth...

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

delder wrote:

I see 2 directions in 3D from the responses above:... (show quote)

This is one of my 3D cards. You need to have a stereo-opticon viewer like in the old days. But then the experience is worth it, and how I know that is because you tend to look 3 or 4 times longer at a 3D print than a 2D one.

The depth in this one just beckons you into the picture.

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

yssirk123 wrote:

Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W3 Digital Camera with 3.5-Inch LCD - $$336, One left in stock at Amazon.

Several on ebay in fact I just ordered a charger and extra battery for mine. Now I can use it again.

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

Fotoartist wrote:

This is one of my 3D cards. You need to have a stereo-opticon viewer like in the old days. But then the experience is worth it, and how I know that is because you tend to look 3 or 4 times longer at a 3D print than a 2D one.

The depth in this one just beckons you into the picture.

Actually, if you focus your eyes in such a way as if sort of cross eyed, you can easily view this image without a 3D viewer, your eyes will do it for you. I just did it with your lamp photo as well.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Lucian wrote:

Actually, if you focus your eyes in such a way as if sort of cross eyed, you can easily view this image without a 3D viewer, your eyes will do it for you. I just did it with your lamp photo as well.

There are two modes of looking at stereo stills. One uses a cross-eyed method where the photos are reversed with respect to left and right. The other leaves the photos uncrossed but they have to be close to the eyes. With the second, or parallel mode, rather than looking at the photos themselves, you look past them so they merge into a single image. The first method gives some viewers a headache. The second is more relaxing. The lamp and lady samples above are the uncrossed, parallel type.
http://www.minerbits.com/how-to-view-3D.html

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Retina wrote:

There are two modes of looking at stereo stills. One uses a cross-eyed method where the photos are reversed with respect to left and right. The other leaves the photos uncrossed but they have to be close to the eyes. With the second, or parallel mode, rather than looking at the photos themselves, you look past them so they merge into a single image.

Neither approach is satisfactory for most viewers.

The cross-eyed method limits the viewing time to the amount of eyestrain you can tolerate.

With the parallel method the images can't be any wider than about 2½ inches each. Some form of optical aid can help like the 19th century holders.

Anaglyph is better than either (no size limit) but it has color issues and it works better with B&W images.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

selmslie wrote:

Neither approach is satisfactory for most viewers.

The cross-eyed method limits the viewing time to the amount of eyestrain you can tolerate.

With the parallel method the images can't be any wider than about 2½ inches each. Some form of optical aid can help like the 19th century holders.

Anaglyph is better than either (no size limit) but it has color issues and it works better with B&W images.

And you need glasses.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

selmslie wrote:

Anaglyph is better than either (no size limit) but it has color issues and it works better with B&W images.

This shows the potential for a large image.

Download it
Download it...

(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

SuperflyTNT wrote:

And you need glasses.

You can get 10 pair for under $17 with plastic frames or 50 for under $9 in cardboard at Amazon.

delder Loc: Maryland

Fotoartist wrote:

This is one of my 3D cards. You need to have a stereo-opticon viewer like in the old days. But then the experience is worth it, and how I know that is because you tend to look 3 or 4 times longer at a 3D print than a 2D one.

The depth in this one just beckons you into the picture.

Question:
How do you print the cards?

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I haven't shot 3-D since the late 1950s and early 60s and that was Kodachrome 3-D slides!

At that time I was just getting to start shooting weddings in New York City. The studio I worked for provided black and white albums and those who wanted color could order a second shooter and have a set of 3-D chromes. At first, I was that second shooter. The main shooter shot black and white on 4x5. Many of the older guys tended to overexpose a bit on Tri-X or Royal Pan but that was a big no-no on Kodachrome. Like most younger guys, I was more careful and worried about exposure so I was elected!

This was extremely popular. There were slide cases that were upholstered with white leather and gold stamped like album overs. I shot 3-D every week and my job also included driving the Kodak Processig plant in Fairlawn, New Jersey with all the film from upwards of 6 weddings. The boss did, not trust the mail and didn't want to leave the film at the local dealer. I would drive up early on Monday mornings, go for lunch, read a few magazines and come back in the early evening with the processed and mounted slides- 24 on each roll of 36!

It was a hot item for a while but viewing the slides was a chore. The special cases also had a compartment for a binocular viewer that had to be passed around. The projection was kinda difficult. You needed a "sliver" screen and glasses, and aligning the projector was not a lot of good fun. Folks that were too far off the projector/screen axis did not see the effect. After a while, it kida fell out of popular favor although there were a few clients that were big into 3-D, did their family and travel photography that way, and ordered our slides for the celebrations of their wedding.

I use 2- 35mm Stereo-Relaist cameras and 2- Revere/Wollensack models. With multiple flashes and Kodachrome 25, the results were really impressive. The lace on the bridal gowns and the flowers were somethg to enjoy!

At one point, when I became a "main shooter", we had a custom rig that piggybacked a Stereo-Realist camera atop a Speed graphic and a complex mechanism that combined the rangefinders. Seriously!? You needed 3 hands and 2 brains to operate that system and add a big strobe and you needed to be a weightlifter. Instead, I just trained a new second shooter!

3-D Digital? Why not?! Sounds INTERESTING!! Remember Viewwe-Master?

David in Dallas Loc: Dallas, Texas, USA

I have created a few 3D stereo pairs. To view them you cross your eyes and merge the 2 images in the middle together. This takes some practice. I've been doing it for 40 years and it's easy for me.

MtHeboOpsStereoPair by David Casteel, on Flickr

GW1755 Loc: Florida

On the subject of 3D - as a kid in the mid 1950's my parents took me to see a couple of 3D movies (Fox theater, downtown Detroit). One was called Broken Arrow with John Wayne. The movie had all the people trying to duck below the seating to prevent being hit by arrows. The 3D could not have been better - best 3D movie I have ever seen. My current HDTV came with 3D glasses and I have watched a couple of movies (wearing the 3D glasses) however, the movies were no comparison to the John Wayne movies I watched in the 1950's. Quality 3D movies are not being made because of the high cost.

David in Dallas Loc: Dallas, Texas, USA

If I were to print my stereo pairs for use in a stereopticon, I'd have to reverse the order because the device presents the image to each eye directly, and my technique has them in opposition due to the crossing of the eyes.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

GW1755 wrote:

On the subject of 3D - as a kid in the mid 1950's ... (show quote)

_______________________________(reply)
Interesting----------

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

OldSchool-WI wrote:

As a child, I would marvel at the scenes from the ... (show quote)

3D is alive and well at the movies. The new release of Avatar, The Way of Water, is shown in 3D at selected theaters. We saw it during the holidays. After the first minute or so, you think you are in the same environment as the characters in the movie! It is that good. You do have to wear the special polarizing glasses. It is an absolute treat that we would see again.

I still have an old Stereopticon and a box of random cards. I also have a Stereo Realist 35mm camera. They occupy a portion of my small old camera display case...