kodachromeproject.com Forums  

Go Back   kodachromeproject.com Forums > Kodachrome, The History and the Era

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08-12-2010, 03:58 PM
Chris Sweetman Chris Sweetman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Nottingham UK
Posts: 225
Chris Sweetman is on a distinguished road
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-12-2010, 04:18 PM
3Dhillary 3Dhillary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 81
3Dhillary is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-28-2011, 08:27 PM
spyra78 spyra78 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Kielce, Poland
Posts: 21
spyra78 is on a distinguished road
Default

awesome 3D but quite uncomfortabe for eyes after a while ...
please post some more!
dino is just great and the car! its like being there
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-29-2011, 05:12 PM
3Dhillary 3Dhillary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 81
3Dhillary is on a distinguished road
Default

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




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




Enjoy, but don't stare at them too long...
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-31-2011, 04:45 AM
dmk9561 dmk9561 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 13
dmk9561 is on a distinguished road
Default

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/...36f9a82d_o.gif

Last edited by dmk9561; 01-31-2011 at 08:11 AM. Reason: remove image
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-31-2011, 07:55 AM
3Dhillary 3Dhillary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 81
3Dhillary is on a distinguished road
Default

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

Last edited by 3Dhillary; 01-31-2011 at 08:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-31-2011, 08:06 AM
dmk9561 dmk9561 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 13
dmk9561 is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-31-2011, 04:04 PM
3Dhillary 3Dhillary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 81
3Dhillary is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmk9561 View Post
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.



Quote:
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...

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.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by 3Dhillary; 01-31-2011 at 05:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-31-2011, 05:25 PM
dmk9561 dmk9561 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 13
dmk9561 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Dhillary View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Dhillary View Post
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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Dhillary View Post
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...

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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-31-2011, 06:52 PM
3Dhillary 3Dhillary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 81
3Dhillary is on a distinguished road
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.