There was a "Viewmaster" 3-D projector. My Dad still has
the camera, film cutter and some empty View Master Reels.
But he never sprung for the 3-D projector either. So...
vacations in the Smokies with dramatic depth...when viewed
through the viewer...2-D when projected on the screen!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven C. Barr(x)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Slides and inconvenient media (was spin it again)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Breneman" <[log in to unmask]>
>> --- "Steven C. Barr(x)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > As I recall, the make was
>> > Stereo Realist...and the format simply paired two standard 35mm
>> > slide images using a "dual slide" mount.
>> But the Realist format is five perforations per frame, not
>> the eight of standard 35mm photography. This frame size
>> yields 28 stereo pairs on a 36 exposure roll of film.
> Well, I never knew the details...all this went on when I was yet
> to become a teenager! No idea if any of the slides survived, or
> who has them if they did...
>> > They could be projected, but NOT in
>> > 3-D...and NOT by standard slide projectors.
>> No, but a stereo projector, with opposing Polaroid
>> filters projecting on a silvered lenticular screen
>> produces a striking effect viewed with the kind of
>> Polaroid glasses used for 3D movies. My projector
>> is made by the long-defunct TDC company.
> This is one of those things which, to me, sounds like
> "It should work, in theory..." but, IIRC, my dad never
> sprung for the 3D projector. Was there ever a ViewMaster
> equivalent made?
>> > We're still waiting for an image/viewer format that will allow the
>> > display of true 3D images on existing computer monitors...!
>> Not on standard monitors, but there are monitors with
>> a lenticular screen as used on 3D postcards and "tilt
>> to see moving image" postcards (one vertical, the other
>> horizontal that can display stereo images without
>> glasses. There are also other technologies, such as
>> spinning LED displays, that can dispay what appear to
>> be solid images in three dimensions.
> Every time I've seen "3D" used in reference to computer images,
> it has referred to "video games"...and then to more-detailed
> images which could provide "fake 3D" through the use of more
> accurate shadow images. These images, of course, require larger
> files, as well as more effort on the part of the creators...
> So, what we need is something which can tell our left eye,
> "Okeh, this is what YOU see"...and the same for our right eye.
> Next step will be a way to code "touch" data and feed it into
> our brains...of course, right after that there will appear a way
> to digitize real objects by providing all the data on the type
> and exact locations of the atoms involved (as large as it may be,
> that is still a finite number...)
> Steven C. Barr