View-Master and Kodachrome

[Chris Sweetman]

Today (31/07/10) my Mother-in-Law and I were looking at her collection of View-Master reels and I became aware that they featured Kodachrome film.
Many reels from Grace's collection are from the 1950's and stated on these envelopes is:

"The pictures in this reel are made on full color KODACHROME film and reasonable care should be exercised in handling."

One reel I found particularly fascinating not only because of the subject matter but it also had an exact date was reel 65. This one was titled: "Volcanic Eruption, Puna, Hawaii Feb. - Mar. 1955". The photographs here look as fresh as when they were processed over 55 years ago! So this is another example that if you want your slides to last choose Kodachrome. Others from the mid 1950's I liked were the close ups featuring birds and butterflies. These had a superb 3-D effect and still had an intense colour again courtesy of Kodachrome.

Looking at later reels there was fading evident . After a search on the internet I found out that from the late 1960's Kodachrome was replaced as the film stock.

Whilst searching I went off on a tangent and found out about stereoscopic photography. View-Master even produced 3-D cameras. The only 3-D cameras I could name before this were the Stereo-Realist and the Nimslo. Along the way I also found out that Kodak provided a service producing stereo pairs of slides from Kodachrome. It looks like the 1950's was the hey day of 3-D photography. It was certainly not covered in any articles in photography magazines I bought from the mid '70's to the present.

For the history of Kodachrome we must not forget the impact it had and still has on 3-D photography and as a home entertainment medium.

Cheers Chris and thanks Grace!

[kevinkar]

Chris,

Do you have the means to scan a few samples and share? I have some much older reels that are quite faded and need some color restoration and I recently bought an Epson V700 that might allow me to get that done as it has the right resolution for the task. Even though they are not Kodachrome.

It would be nice to see a few examples of those volcano images you mentioned!

Now that you noted this, I need to go through my reels and see if any are indeed made from Kodachrome. I'll see what I can find.

Kevin

[uwphotoer]

I have a kodachrome slide my grandfather shot of my mother in 1938, looks like it was taken last week.

[3Dhillary]

Along the way I also found out that Kodak provided a service producing stereo pairs of slides from Kodachrome. It looks like the 1950's was the hey day of 3-D photography. It was certainly not covered in any articles in photography magazines I bought from the mid '70's to the present.

For the history of Kodachrome we must not forget the impact it had and still has on 3-D photography and as a home entertainment medium.

Cheers Chris and thanks Grace!

It's that connection between Kodachrome and stereo photography that brought me here (as my username would indicate ;)). The 1950s 3D photography era would not have existed if not for Kodachrome. Not only did it make the View-Master practical in the late 1930s, but Seton Rochwite developed the prototype Stereo Realist camera specifically to take 3D color slides in Kodachrome. This particular combination of camera and film ignited that era of 3D. :cool:

When other camera companies followed suit, offering their own "Realist format" cameras, Kodak was among those. IMO, none are as robust as the Stereo Realist, but Kodak's stereo camera is much more user friendly, and more attractively designed. But just to clarify, Kodak offered stereo mounting services for Kodachrome shot with stereo cameras (and even specially packaged film), but didn't do anything otherwise special to create 3D images. In other words, they couldn't create 3D from a customer's standard Kodachrome slides.

Using the View Master Personal camera was very economical, with 72 stereo pairs on a single roll of film. After processing, the film was passed through a special punch (or die cutter) which took out the proper pairs, each side keyed for its own opening in the View Master Personal reels. I met a gentleman who told me his wedding was shot in View Master back in the 1950s. He said back then, having any kind of stereo 3D shots was the only way to get color pictures of one's wedding. Though I've not seen many V-M wedding pictures, I've seen hundreds of wedding stereos in Kodachrome. Truly the most perfect way to preserve such an event.

In his book "Americans in Kodachrome," Guy Stricherz notes the importance of the Stereo Realist along with the Argus C3 as seminal in capturing the color of life during Americana's halcyon days "between the war we won and the war we lost." The Stereo Realist was in production from 1947 to 1971. It was the first and last of its type to be produced, outliving all of its competition.

Since 1998, I've been shooting Kodachrome in my Stereo Realist (last roll of K64 is in there right now) and have been collecting vintage amateur stereo slides. Just as with View-Master reels, looking at those 3D slides is like looking back through time! Kodachrome alreadly has a 3D look--imagine it in real 3D! :eek: It may be a compartively small subset of Kodachrome history, but for what it offers, a very important one.

BTW, I can't find any reason for it, but some post 1960s View-Masters continued to use Kodachrome for their reels. I have the 1976 King Kong V-M set in perfect color (and with that distinctive Kodachrome relief). By the 1980s, it looks like the transition was unfortunately complete.

Thanks for sharing your experience Chris. It's wonderful to discover something new that's old! :)

[Chris Sweetman]

Chris,

Do you have the means to scan a few samples and share? I have some much older reels that are quite faded and need some color restoration and I recently bought an Epson V700 that might allow me to get that done as it has the right resolution for the task. Even though they are not Kodachrome.

It would be nice to see a few examples of those volcano images you mentioned!

Now that you noted this, I need to go through my reels and see if any are indeed made from Kodachrome. I'll see what I can find.

Kevin

Sorry Kevin but I don't have a flat bed scanner that can scan film. I am hoping to get one soon and the Epson V700 looks like the best in the business. You may be able to get the volcano set from e-bay.

As you will be aware the format View-Master used was very small so it will need a good scanner to bring out the detail.

Cheers Chris

[Chris Sweetman]

It may be a comparatively small subset of Kodachrome history, but for what it offers, a very important one.

BTW, I can't find any reason for it, but some post 1960s View-Masters continued to use Kodachrome for their reels. I have the 1976 King Kong V-M set in perfect color (and with that distinctive Kodachrome relief). By the 1980s, it looks like the transition was unfortunately complete.

Thanks for sharing your experience Chris. It's wonderful to discover something new that's old! :)

Hi 3Dhillary

The results using Kodachrome in your Stereo Realist camera must be quite something. Thanks for providing a background history to both areas. I found it very interesting. Looking at some of the sites relating to 3D it appears that mounts are still available. It is great that firms still provide accessories to keep this format alive. What film stock will you be using after that last roll of KR64?

Regarding View-Master when we got back home my wife found her collection of reels. This collection comprises of reels that she had from her childhood, college years and a some sets acquired from a car boot fair a few years ago. Some of the later non Kodachrome reels are hit and miss regarding fading. In their non-film related range V-M provides a time machine. I am enchanted by the views of places as they were in the 1950's. Other favourites from my wife's collection are the Children's Zoo (San Diego) reels B 6171, B 6172 & B6173 all dated 1958 and Disneyland Fantasyland A178 undated and all on Kodachrome.

Amongst GAF's wide product line were films. Perhaps they used their own brand for V-M reels. However, I think GAF stopped producing film stock in the mid '70's so perhaps this allowed other film producers back in. All this is speculative as I have not found out any real information from internet searches. Certainly even if Kodachrome was used during the GAF era they did not promote another companies wares. This is in contrast to Sawyers who did openly supply the name of Kodachrome to their reel outers.

I must confess that after this exposure to 3D images I found myself taking shoots in the style of V-M when I went out with my family to Stratford on Avon. These photos were taken with Kodachrome using an OM4Ti and a Zuiko 28mm f2.8 lens. OK they are not 3D but the style was a travelog type used by V-M.

Finally, on the subject of 3D images do you have a copy of "Bugs in 3-D" by Mark Blum published by Chronicle Books, San Franciso 1998? Here the pictures are stereo pairs and are viewed with a built in stereoscope.

I hope a few more people will provide their experiences in this significant arena using Kodachrome in 3D cameras and as a 3D home entertainment system.

As you have said 3Dhillary it is certainly wonderful to discover something old that's new! It has been a bonus to have a site like this to share experiences.

Thanks :)

Cheers Chris

[3Dhillary]

The results using Kodachrome in your Stereo Realist camera must be quite something. Thanks for providing a background history to both areas. I found it very interesting. Looking at some of the sites relating to 3D it appears that mounts are still available. It is great that firms still provide accessories to keep this format alive. What film stock will you be using after that last roll of KR64?

Hi Chris,

I wish there was a good way via the internet to share Kodachrome stereos in their full glory. Of course, you already know that splendor while peering into the View-Master. :) Those of us still shooting stereo slides are fortunate that high quality mounts continue to be available. Unfortunately, a year or so ago, Fisher-Price discontinued the View-Master Personal reels for those shooting in that format. Clever enterpreneurs have offered alternatives which appear viable. But of course, our Kodachrome is being taken away. When this roll is gone, I'll be switching over to Fuji Astia 100F, which compares reasonably well to the vintage 1950s Kodachrome stereos in my collection (and has the most pleasing skintones this side of K-chrome IMO), and Provia 100F, which favors the K64 a bit more. Admittedly, they are compromises, but based on my slide shows, I'm the only one who can tell the difference.

It would be interesting to know if when GAF owned View-Mater, they used their own film for the reels. If anyone knows, it should be the folks who run this website:

http://www.cinti.net/~vmmasell/

Those great old reels seem to have more resonance today they they did when new. Back then, anyone viewing them was merely traveling through space; new they're traveling through time!

I love that you've found yourself adopting the V-M documentary approach in some of your own photography. Often, when I'm shooting (especially Kodachrome), I feel I am documenting something which may be important to someone someday. Perhaps it is our awareness of Kodachrome's lengendary longevity which informs much of our work that way. BTW, you can shoot in 3D with your Olympus by taking two quick exposures, shifting your weight from one foot to the other in between. It's called the "cha cha" method, and works best on non-moving subjects. And there are viewing options for such pairs, but that may have to wait for another post.

I've heard good things about "Bugs in 3D" but do not have it. One of my favorite 3D books is "3-D Hollywood," featuring the 1950s stereo Kodachromes of Harold Lloyd, most famous as a daredevil comedian from the silent movie era. His stereo images reflect his world, including friends like Marilyn Monroe, Gene Autry, and many others. Another book of his 3-D photography concentrates on the many nudes he shot, including Bettie Page! :eek:

On a much more modest note, and in the interest of personal documentation, we had our own wedding shot in 3D Kodachrome. Below is my best attempt to share one of those images. To see it in 3D, you need to cross your eyes until you see three images. Concentrate on the middle image and it will appear 3D. :cool: It takes practice, but in lieu of sending viewers to everyone, this is the best I can offer. I hope it works for you.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo11/Skylark67/HessWedNet.jpg

[Clay]

Excellent, it works!

Now to dig out my view-master reels from the 1950's.

Been quite a few years since I last looked at them

Best regards,

/Clay

[kevinkar]

Sorry Kevin but I don't have a flat bed scanner that can scan film. I am hoping to get one soon and the Epson V700 looks like the best in the business. You may be able to get the volcano set from e-bay.

As you will be aware the format View-Master used was very small so it will need a good scanner to bring out the detail.

No problem. I haven't dug out my VM reels yet nor have I tried them out on the V700 though I am predicting the images will be reasonably good.

The only problem I have found with the V700 is the difficulty at achieving sharp focus across multiple scans. Epson's slide and negative holders are handy (loading 12 slides at a time is a great time saver) but they only have 3 discrete focus points using the little adjustable feet. A bit cumbersome and dependent on the slide mount thickness and film curl (the holders do a decent job of keeping the film taut but it's still different for every roll!

There are aftermarket holders with a finer and greater range of adjustment but they are not cheap.

I had to get my Nikon LS-2000 serviced and, though it's only 2700dpi, I can achieve exceptionally sharp focus with it so I use that more than the V700. I'll keep messing with the V700 for the 120, 126, and other format negatives I have since they are unable to be used in the Nikon.

Kevin

[kevinkar]

Update: I just checked my reels and have 75 from 1946-1947 and all of them are in sleeves that say "7 Three-Dimensional Pictures in Full-Color Kodachrome".

The bad news is that they are all in pretty bad shape and are mostly nice shades of purple with blue skies a sickly yellow. Now and then you'll see a nice bright red but mostly they are all of poor quality.

Checking my records, I bought them on ebay in 2002 and remember them being a disappointment then as well so their condition is that in which I bought them and not due to any poor storage on my part.

It's possible that SilverFast (I bought an upgrade for the V700 with IT8 Calibration) might be able to work some magic on them but, if my Dad's slides from the late 50s are an indication (some have similar color issues) color correcting them will be a nightmare regardless of calibration.

Lastly, I ran a quick test on the V700 using the settings for "Film Area Guide" (allows you to place negatives directly on the glass as opposed to the film holders which are a different setting) and got an image that was pretty blurry compared to the original. Checking on a light box with loupe shows the original is not all that sharp to begin with but the scan is worse. So, knowing the cardboard reel adds a bit of height, I'll have to experiment to see if I can sharpen them up at all using different settings and resolutions.

Right now, though, my reels are pretty shot which makes any scanning project of them likely moot.

Note the image here is reversed. I placed it on the scanner backwards and am too lazy to reverse it at the moment.

http://i516.photobucket.com/albums/u325/kevinkar/ViewMaster/VM-Test-001.jpg

[Jed Skillman]

3-D Hillary...You are spot on with your comment that 3-D pictures used to offer a trip through space but now, looking at older stereos, offer a trip through time.

One of the important things about old stereo slides or View Master reels, the travel ones, is the insight of how things used to be, how people lived. It is just magic.

[kevinkar]

There's nothing quite like looking at an old reel to find an old Greyhound bus but not the streamlined corrugated aluminum ones of the 50s and beyond. NO! I'm talking the old OLD ones like Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert rode in "It Happened One Night". Way cool.

[3Dhillary]

Thanks Jed. I'll never forget the first vintage stereo Kodachromes I saw; Florida orange groves and Cypress Gardens! It was such a strange feeling--looking through time! Until then, I hadn't even considered the many V-M reels which have now become vivid documents of a bygone era.

And kevinkar, I know what you mean, seeing those great images of life just as it was. Those early V-M reels give us an even farther glimpse into the past than the Realist slides. If you have any success scanning a V-M pair (perhaps with that Greyhound bus ;)), it would be easy to post as I did mine. There is freeware available called Stereo Photo Maker and it's so easy to use. Let me know if you have any questions about it.

http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/stphmkr/

[Chris Sweetman]

BTW, you can shoot in 3D with your Olympus by taking two quick exposures, shifting your weight from one foot to the other in between. It's called the "cha cha" method, and works best on non-moving subjects.

Hi 3Dhillary

I did try out the "cha cha" method but with a manual wind on camera I had to take it away from my eye to wind onto the next frame to re-compose. In doing so I lost the subject! :(

Unfortunately, I never bothered to purchase a motor drive or winder for my OM cameras. I feel this piece of equipment is what is required to enable this technique to work.

Also your regarding 3-D image despite many attempts I was unable to get a 3 dimensional image.

Never mind I did have a go a both! :)

Cheers Chris

[Chris Sweetman]

One of the important things about old stereo slides or View Master reels, the travel ones, is the insight of how things used to be, how people lived. It is just magic.

You are not wrong here Jed. My favourites are the English holiday resorts. Here we see a different holiday style to todays. People seem to be content with just exploring a place and viewing the sites. Also I enjoy seeing the the vehicles of the day actually used for their intended purpose. I now see these now at transport events. They are lovingly restored and are the pride of the owner.

Cheers Chris

[3Dhillary]

Also your regarding 3-D image despite many attempts I was unable to get a 3 dimensional image.

Never mind I did have a go a both! :)


No worries, Chris. I appreciate you trying those techniques anyway. That cross-eyed viewing doesn't work for everyone, but you may want to come back to it after a few weeks and try it again. It may just pop into place, and you'll see it in 3D like Clay did. It's strange, but sometimes it works that way.

Funny thing about those old scenic views. Tracking internet auctions, I've seen so many 3D Kodachrome slides of flowers. Seems a natural subject for color film, and in depth. Yet there is practically no interest in those, and they often get no bids Flowers haven't changed much in the last half century. But vintage views such as those showing busy streets teeming with pedestrians and automobiles are very desirable. It's that whole "time capsule" aspect which attracts people today. I can take my own slides of flowers, but I can't take a slide of Times Square as it looked in 1946.

It's those images which reminds me of what the archaeologist Belloq tells Indiana Jones while showing him a pocket watch:

Look at this. It's worthless - ten dollars from a vendor in the street. But I take it, I bury it in the sand for a thousand years, it becomes priceless.

And it doesn't even have to take a thousand years. :)

[Chris Sweetman]

Funny thing about those old scenic views. Tracking internet auctions, I've seen so many 3D Kodachrome slides of flowers. Seems a natural subject for color film, and in depth. Yet there is practically no interest in those, and they often get no bids Flowers haven't changed much in the last half century. But vintage views such as those showing busy streets teeming with pedestrians and automobiles are very desirable. It's that whole "time capsule" aspect which attracts people today. I can take my own slides of flowers, but I can't take a slide of Times Square as it looked in 1946.

Hi 3Dhillary

I think you have "hit the nail on the head" here. Flowers haven't altered at all in 50 years but the view of the "High Street" has. So this is why time capsule
photographs will always attract a premium over natural history images.

In a few weeks time I will get back to that 3D image you have posted and I bet/hope it will come to life! :)

Cheers Chris

[3Dhillary]

Hi Chris,

I appreciate you planning on giving the 3D another go sometime in the future. To that end, I'll include another Kodachrome stereo pair set up to be viewed the same way. It's of my hubby in an old vehicle of ours. To us, such classics (cars, old cameras, etc. ;)) are not merely museum pieces, but are meant to be used for their intended purpose. And to us, the natural habitat for an old convertible is the drive-in restaurant on a warm summer night! :cool:

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo11/Skylark67/TreatXnet.jpg

[dmr]

And to us, the natural habitat for an old convertible is the drive-in restaurant on a warm summer night!

OMG! I can actually make those work! :) Way cool! Same for the one of the wedding with the bubbles right out there!

Please post more if you have them.

Thanks.

Now excuse me while I go take a triple dose of ergotamine. :) :) :)

[3Dhillary]

OMG! I can actually make those work! :) Way cool! Same for the one of the wedding with the bubbles right out there!

Please post more if you have them.

Thanks.

Now excuse me while I go take a triple dose of ergotamine.

LOL! :D Be careful, dmr! Don't cross your eyes too long, or they'll stay that way! :eek:

I'll post some great vintage Kodachrome stereos later, but for now, here's my attempt at a View-Master type shot taken at the New York Museum of Natural History:

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo11/Skylark67/trexXweb.jpg

[Chris Sweetman]

Almost got the car one 3dhillary! I just cannot stare long enough! LOL!

BTW a really nice motor!

Regarding the indoor dinosaur shot. Is this with flash? If it is how on earth does it work with two images?

Cheers Chris

[3Dhillary]

Hey Chris,

I have another helpful hint to viewing these; with one of my stereos on the screen, hold your index finger about 8 inches in front of your face. Your eyes will converge at about the correct angle. Then quickly pull your finger down and look at the screen. Hopefully, it may make the process easier for you.

Regarding my stereo pairs, both images are taken at precisely the same moment. One flash services both halves, so the angle of light does not conflict as it might with a "cha cha" stereo using a camera-mounted flash.

I also used flash with the car shot. :)

I hope that answers your question.

[spyra78]

awesome 3D but quite uncomfortabe for eyes after a while :D...
please post some more!
dino is just great and the car! its like being there:)

[3Dhillary]

Hi spyra78! Glad you enjoy them Here are a few more:

This is a vintage Kodachrome slide, on the mount was written, En Route 1951

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo11/Skylark67/EnRoute51net.jpg


And here's one to get you crosseyed! A Kodachrome that I took several years ago.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo11/Skylark67/icebranchXnet.jpg


Enjoy, but don't stare at them too long...:eek:

[dmk9561]

Like many other people, I don't have good stereo vision. I grew up with a lazy eye, and I have some ability to see natural 3D, but artificial means of conveying a 3D image don't always "work" for me. The more eye-crossing and so on required, the less likely it is to work. I've never had a Magic Eye picture work.

Making it into an animated GIF takes that factor out of seeing it. Instead, it's as visible as a lenticular print, which is easy to see if it's properly made. I used En Route 1951 for an example.http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5139/5404323654_c636f9a82d_o.gif

[3Dhillary]

dmk9561, I understand your problem and appreciate your efforts. However, I specifically do NOT post GIFS of my stereo pairs because of the particular "cheap and dirty" technique for my "scans," there are plenty of problems which your gif points out, namely uneven illumination and some dimensional distortion. These issues are not so much of a problem when presented as pairs (or anaglyph--but that would defeat the purpose of showing off Kodachrome in the first place). A proper scan, if it is warranted, would provide a much better effect as a gif, than what I've provided here.

On the occasion when I can afford proper scans, I can offer them as gifs, but I would greatly appreciate and respectfully request you PM me first before doing anything with the images I post, in order that we may present the best possible quality from any given image.

Thank you, Hillary

[dmk9561]

Ok, I'm sorry I sure didn't mean to offend, that's why I used the image that figured wasn't yours from the description. It's also pretty likely that the unevenness isn't even from your scan, but the shooting equipment. Looking at many of the 3D images I've seen before, they suffer from obvious optical shortcomings including vignetting and uneven sharpness across the image. To fix that particular shortcoming isn't a matter of scanning, but (maybe) hours in PS. People wondering aloud about why 3D photography seems to have gone away, basically look no further. If you have other ways to view them, it would probably be better to do that.

You can count on people to generally prefer cheap and adequate to extra good. That explains why sub-CD quality MP3s caught on instead of the concurrently available higher quality DVD-Audio. It's the same reason everyone's here lamenting the death of Kodachrome.

[3Dhillary]

Ok, I'm sorry I sure didn't mean to offend, that's why I used the image that figured wasn't yours from the description. It's also pretty likely that the unevenness isn't even from your scan, but the shooting equipment. Looking at many of the 3D images I've seen before, they suffer from obvious optical shortcomings including vignetting and uneven sharpness across the image.

No offense taken, but this is precisely the reason I post my images (the one in question is in my collection--I have the physical slide) as I choose. Your assumption as to its defects are entirely false. The original slide has perfect exposure between the two images, and exhibits none of the "optical shortcomings" other than likely vignetting by using a Realist 3.5 lens camera rather than the 2.8 model.

The undesirable artifacts come from my "scanning" method of holding my digital P&S camera to the eyepieces of the viewer. Not really done to exacting standards. I just cannot currently afford to have them scanned for gifs, which is why I post them as I do.

As I said before, proper scans from those slides in an animated gif would surprise you with their quality. Here is an example taken by architectural photographer Jack Laxer back in the 1950s (on Kodachrome ;)). Except for the compression artifacts, the quality of the image speaks for itself.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo11/Skylark67/HuddlePalmsprings_Laxer2.gif

People wondering aloud about why 3D photography seems to have gone away, basically look no further.

Now THIS is offensive; you take what I tell you is an inferior example of a digital conversion, and hold it aloft as an example why 3D has "gone away." For the record, 3D has been around nearly as long as photography itself, and while has waxed and waned in popular culture, really never went away. If I'm wrong, tell Fuji, which introduced its second 3D digital camera! Just don't tell James Cameron...:D

I am sorry that you cannot process depth properly, but I cannot speak for the 3D images you've seen before. My personal experience is not the same. Additionally, search for Jed Skillman's posts here. Few people can articulate the impact of good Kodachrome stereo slides they way he can.

You can count on people to generally prefer cheap and adequate to extra good.

Another dig? I apologize for furnishing you with substandard scans, it will not happen again. BTW, I prefer my music on vinyl. :p

[dmk9561]

No offense taken, but this is precisely the reason I post my images (the one in question is in my collection--I have the physical slide) as I choose. Your assumption as to its defects are entirely false. The original slide has perfect exposure between the two images, and exhibits none of the "optical shortcomings" other than likely vignetting by using a Realist 3.5 lens camera rather than the 2.8 model.

I could be and have been wrong before. It does depend on the method, it's just that particular image reminded me of ones I've seen before. I would've never guessed that one was "scanned" that way, and I didn't know what type of equipment was used to make it. Every additional step between exposure and viewing has a way of introducing its own artifacts, and the ones you weren't happy with on that image as a GIF apparently come from the P&S camera scan. You've got the proper stuff to make one that has both acceptable image and effect, and clearly you understand what it takes to make it work.


As I said before, proper scans from those slides in an animated gif would surprise you with their quality. Here is an example taken by architectural photographer Jack Laxer back in the 1950s (on Kodachrome ;)). Except for the compression artifacts, the quality of the image speaks for itself.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo11/Skylark67/HuddlePalmsprings_Laxer2.gif

You won't see much better out of a GIF, as it is already way beyond what it was meant to do. Both the quality and the subject are striking.


Now THIS is offensive; you take what I tell you is an inferior example of a digital conversion, and hold it aloft as an example why 3D has "gone away." For the record, 3D has been around nearly as long as photography itself, and while has waxed and waned in popular culture, really never went away. If I'm wrong, tell Fuji, which introduced its second 3D digital camera! Just don't tell James Cameron...:D

I am sorry that you cannot process depth properly, but I cannot speak for the 3D images you've seen before. My personal experience is not the same. Additionally, search for Jed Skillman's posts here. Few people can articulate the impact of good Kodachrome stereo slides they way he can.

3D images are like the elusive Holy Grail that people periodically have tried with varying degrees of success to make. Many have an excellent depth effect, but require an inconvenient viewer like the ones sold 100 years ago. Some, like Magic Eye, are a novelty for novelty's sake. The Nimslo/Nishika camera produced lenticular prints like I mentioned being able to see, but was itself generally crummy optics and overpriced service. Perhaps the Fuji cameras can finally bring the combination of low cost, quality, and ease of use that will make it successfully catch on with the buyer.

A big part of the obvious appeal to many photographers today who had still used Kodachrome is that it already seemed to have such depth. It's an obvious choice and an excellent medium to take "depth" to the next level photographically. I've no doubt that an already functional process as you've described is just that much better for being shot with Kodachrome.

As for what I meant about the cheapness, the cheap splitting optics that might produce a stereo effect but soft focus and vignetting would've been an easier sell than good stuff. I'm a fan of the Exakta camera, and there was a stereo setup for it that I'm sure was very expensive and probably worked well. I'm sure they sold tens of them, but the images are probably impressive even today. I'm sure that the small ads in the back of magazines had similar kits available for much less money that weren't made as well. The results would've been less sharp, but probably "worked."

If any of it was too difficult, expensive, or produced bad results, it would've quickly gone into disuse. That was the MP3 analogy. People were happy with cheap and fairly good 2D pictures in general. Far from trying to be a detractor of the format, I was just trying to point out a different way of presenting a 3D image. I certainly wasn't trying to be insulting. In the case of that particular image, the artifacts of the process are ones that weren't what you'd normally accept, and I can certainly understand and respect that.

[3Dhillary]

Thanks for your response. You cleared up some things I wasn't sure of, and took the wrong way. I apologize for that. I'll be the first to admit that my "scans" are barely adequate, and that's why I'm careful with how they're presented.

Like all photographic equipment over the years, the quality of 3D gear is all over the place. At the very least, because of the narrow latitude of Kodachrome, the majority of stereo cameras of the 1950s era were of a quality to properly expose slides. Matched lenses, synchronized shutters, linked exposure and focus controls--the level of quality was generally pretty good. Here's a good sampling from the era (including your Exakta attachment):

http://www.ignomini.com/photographica/3dcameras2.html

One source even reports people were trading in their Leicas for stereo cameras, such was the enthusiasm at the time. Not sure I would have gone quite that far. Much rather have both...

The later generation of fixed-focus cameras for lenticular prints left something to be desired. 3D has always been relatively inconvenient, preventing its mass acceptance. And as you point out, Kodachrome's sublime contrast already appeared to have its own depth. But the combination of the two can be glorious.

Today, I just received a set of vintage Kodachrome stereo slides. Don't know the people, but it remains fascinating to look back in time at their lives from over a half century ago. The color is perfect; the 3D is the icing on the cake.

Glad you like the Laxer photo. The man knows his stuff! :cool:

[dmr]

Oh wow! That branch just kinda pops out at you! :)

Excellent! Thanks! :) More? :)

[Chris Sweetman]

You can count on people to generally prefer cheap and adequate to extra good. That explains why sub-CD quality MP3s caught on instead of the concurrently available higher quality DVD-Audio. It's the same reason everyone's here lamenting the death of Kodachrome.

If we are talking of the mass population then ease of use is going to win every time! One of the problems with the 135 format was that users had problems loading the film into the camera and re-winding when exposed. Hence the 126/110/disc/APS formats that Kodak introduced! No issues with loading here just replace the cassette/disc with a new one.

However, the cameras that used the 110/126/disc/APS format were at the cheap mass produced end of the market and had little functionality. They were the ultimate P&S cameras! Yes Pentax tried with a 110 format SLR and Nikon/Minolta issued APS SLRs but these arrived too late in the scheme of things!

The APS film system never got started but it's legacy survives in the APS-C sized sensors used by most of the current DSLR camera manufacturers and is now appearing on some compact digital cameras.

Even in modern easy to use digital compacts I bet that most 'captures' are exposed via the auto setting! Ease of use again!

Cheers Chris

[Chris Sweetman]

Thanks Hillary for posting these images and the information that goes with it. I appreciate this.

I have tried again to view them in 3D but still haven't succeeded yet! I guess the way forward is to print them and view them in a true stereo viewer!

The GIMP images send me dizzy!

Cheers Chris

[3Dhillary]

I'll dig something up in the next couple of days, dmr. Hold tight!

Chris, I'm so sorry you are having problems seeing them. I can send anaglyph versions to you if you have any of those funny red and blue glasses lying around. Just let me know. It wreaks havoc on the hues, but you'll see the 3D.

All the best,
Hillary

[Chris Sweetman]

Chris, I'm so sorry you are having problems seeing them. I can send anaglyph versions to you if you have any of those funny red and blue glasses lying around. Just let me know. It wreaks havoc on the hues, but you'll see the 3D.

All the best,
Hillary

Thanks Hillary I would like to take you up on that offer. I am sure I have some of those glasses hidden away somewhere!

I was thinking of using the stereo viewer from that 3D book I mentioned. It is a matter of making sure the images match the size of the ones in the book and there is the correct separation between the images.

Thanks again.

Chris

[spyra78]

they all just great! the last one just sticks out of the screen of my laptop:)...
i will have to get a break now thou as i dont really want to end up with crossed eyes;).
thanx for the show!
and i am waiting for some more:).

[Chris Sweetman]

We bought our daughter the new 3DS hand held gaming console. Yes now you can see 3D images without any aids!

May be the way forward.

Cheers Chris

[3Dhillary]

Yes Chris! Looks like the glasses-free 3DTV sets are just around the corner! That's fine with me, and one of the reasons we haven't even looked into 3DTV yet. First-generation electronics seem to become obsolete with alarming speed! :eek:

[3Dhillary]

Here is an animated GIF produced from one of my 3D weDDDing shoots. It should be of particular interest to you, dmk9561, as this stereo pair was properly scanned and show the kind of quality of which the equipment is capable. In fact, the scans were taken from one of my dupe slides, copied by myself and is one generation away from the original. Quality is maintained through every step of the process.


http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo11/Skylark67/carriageGIF.gif

[lxdude]

I'm suddenly feeling dizzy...

[3Dhillary]

The unfortunate drawbacks of sharing 3D on the interwebs; you either go crosseyed or dizzy! :eek:

There's just no way to duplicate the impact of these images in a dedicated viewer.