A Vote For Stereo Slides

Discussion in '3D Cameras' started by ChrisMohrSr, Oct 3, 2012.

  1. ChrisMohrSr

    ChrisMohrSr Member

    Jul 24, 2012
    Likes Received:
    Homeland CA
    I would like to comment on the current controversy about 3D.
    Yes, there are at least one hundred reasons why watching a stereoscopic motion picture violates the way in which we view the world, but let us give the devil his due. I have been shooting stereo slides with the same Stereo Realist camera since 1952 and when you are fortunate enough to capture a truly great image in three dimensions, it has no equal.
    I wonder if those that criticize the current trend in "3D Movies" have ever sat down and viewed some three dimensional slides that can really be described as examples of classic photography. Examples that could never be as classic if viewed as a planar instant in time. Harold Lloyd knew this and dedicated a good part of his life to glorifying the three dimensional images he made in all parts of our world.
    I know that some of our young "experts" who are apparently qualified to criticize the work of a giant such as James Camaron are asking, "Harold who?"
    All I'm saying is, a well planned three dimensional image is the best photographic representation you can get.
    ChrisMohrSr, Oct 3, 2012
  2. ChrisMohrSr

    Glenn Member

    Jan 21, 2014
    Likes Received:
    I completely agree!
    A good stereo image has a quality all it's own but this is lost in the movies (of today, and most of the previous 3d movie efforts.)
    Looking around this forum and reading the various posts, there seems to be a general trend towards technology, with many questions about software, conversion programs and hardware (that must have a certain format.) What this means to me is a separation of the 3d world into two camps, one for the technology and the other more concerned with the aesthetics.
    Even in Harold Lloyd's day there was the format of the Stereo Realist as a limitation, but as the modern technology becomes more refined so does it's format.
    What I know after playing around with 3d for at least 40 years is that format is secondary to content, that in order to really "get" that 3d image you often have to be flexible, since taking-lenses on a 5-inch base won't capture a 3d image at 1 inch, or at 1,000 feet either. You have to be creative to do this, and allowing a single format system to decide for you is accepting a limitation.
    Still, I have hopes for the future of 3d television and movies, once the sensational and over-the-top has been abandoned for a more aesthetic approach. 3d motion-pictures have always been more expensive to produce and "arrows flying out of the screen" have just been required to make the film a better investment. Let the medium come to maturity and there will have to be art and beauty for it's own sake.
    Glenn, Jan 23, 2014
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.