I recently was taught how to do the cross-eye 3D technique and I suddenly want to take medium format stereo pictures. A cursory googling shows me there is a Russian purpose built camera to do this, and a few ancient plate film cameras from Voigtlander and F+H. For any of you folks in the know, are any of these good options? Or is home-brew a good idea (i.e. strap two TLRs together)?
Medium format stereo
-
A
- Thread starter Grim Tuesday
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Coolscan 4000/5000 MA-21 Slide mount adapter (free)
- Started by RoboRepublic
-
For Sale Nikon Fm2n w/50mm 1.8
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale FS: Hansa 6x9 Wooden Field Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Schneider Tele-Arton 270mm f/5.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS Best TLR ever:) Kodak Brownie Reflex Synchro Model, 127 film
- Started by Erik L
Forum statistics
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,625
- Format
- Multi Format
A member who hasn't been active for some time, Polyglot, did some medium format stereo pairs, if I remember correctly. Search for his name on this forum and you might come up with some information. I've read the Sputnik can be made reliable, and there is the Holga, though I'm not sure of the quality.
So far I've stuck with a View Master Personal and Realist 45, both 35mm. I may try medium format stereo some day.
So far I've stuck with a View Master Personal and Realist 45, both 35mm. I may try medium format stereo some day.
About 18 years ago, out of curiosity, I did some stereo print pairs using two Yashica 124Gs mounted on a bar (with the bar on a tripod). Tandem cable release. I'd seen someone's stunning work with 120 transparencies in a custom-built viewer.
It works; if a little unwieldy. The cameras were very close together to keep the distance between lens centers at a bit more than eye separation. I had (and still have, with the bar, somewhere) a viewer that was used by placing one print above the other and looking at them through that.
Did only a couple of rolls. Years later, found some stereo enthusiast websites and soon learned about the weight-shift method (from one foot to the other to move the lens about eye-distance apart) using one digital camera. Much easier (assuming your subject stays still).
There's lots of info out there at 3Dphoto.net and stereoscopy.com . Friendly and welcoming communities
It works; if a little unwieldy. The cameras were very close together to keep the distance between lens centers at a bit more than eye separation. I had (and still have, with the bar, somewhere) a viewer that was used by placing one print above the other and looking at them through that.
Did only a couple of rolls. Years later, found some stereo enthusiast websites and soon learned about the weight-shift method (from one foot to the other to move the lens about eye-distance apart) using one digital camera. Much easier (assuming your subject stays still).
There's lots of info out there at 3Dphoto.net and stereoscopy.com . Friendly and welcoming communities
Yes! Medium Format 3D (MF3D) is my primary photographic medium. There's nothing that compares to a pair of properly exposed medium format slides in a backlit handheld viewer. Looking at a regular photograph might bring back memories of a particular location. Looking at an MF3D slide makes you feel like you are actually standing back in that location.
Most of the active MF3D shooters discuss their craft on the Yahoo Group "MF3D group" as well as in traveling folios. I really recommend you check our the Yahoo group and ask questions there. We are a small but dedicated and generous bunch.
You ask about cameras. The easiest way to get started is the Russian camera you mentioned, the Sputnik. With some simple improvements, it is a great performer. Super lightweight and easy to use. And very affordable.
The older plate cameras like the Voigtlander Stereflektoskop, and the Franke & Heidecke Rolleidoscope and Heidoscope are great as well if you can find a working sample that takes roll film. But they are also an order of magnitude more expensive. Stereo photography usually requires sharp focus throughout the image, so usually you will be shooting at f/16 or f/22, and even the inexpensive triplets of the Sputnik perform quite well at these apertures. At f/22, I can just barely detect a bit more softness in the corners of the Sputnik slide compared to a Rolleidoscop slide.
If you are already familiar with stereo photography, you might want to consider a pair of "mono" cameras. You will have more freedom in creating special types of imagery like "hyper-stereos", but this comes with an added challenges of needing to align and sync the cameras, as well as some challenges when mounting. It will also be hard to get two medium format cameras close enough together for regular "ortho-stereo" pictures. I really recommend the Sputnik to get started -- it's a lot simpler.
If you decide to dive in to MF3D, send me a PM and I can send you some cardboard mounts for medium format stereo transparencies. If you go for a Sputnik, let me know and I'll send you some flocking paper to reduce internal reflections as well as some instructions for some simple improvements.
Most of the active MF3D shooters discuss their craft on the Yahoo Group "MF3D group" as well as in traveling folios. I really recommend you check our the Yahoo group and ask questions there. We are a small but dedicated and generous bunch.
You ask about cameras. The easiest way to get started is the Russian camera you mentioned, the Sputnik. With some simple improvements, it is a great performer. Super lightweight and easy to use. And very affordable.
The older plate cameras like the Voigtlander Stereflektoskop, and the Franke & Heidecke Rolleidoscope and Heidoscope are great as well if you can find a working sample that takes roll film. But they are also an order of magnitude more expensive. Stereo photography usually requires sharp focus throughout the image, so usually you will be shooting at f/16 or f/22, and even the inexpensive triplets of the Sputnik perform quite well at these apertures. At f/22, I can just barely detect a bit more softness in the corners of the Sputnik slide compared to a Rolleidoscop slide.
If you are already familiar with stereo photography, you might want to consider a pair of "mono" cameras. You will have more freedom in creating special types of imagery like "hyper-stereos", but this comes with an added challenges of needing to align and sync the cameras, as well as some challenges when mounting. It will also be hard to get two medium format cameras close enough together for regular "ortho-stereo" pictures. I really recommend the Sputnik to get started -- it's a lot simpler.
If you decide to dive in to MF3D, send me a PM and I can send you some cardboard mounts for medium format stereo transparencies. If you go for a Sputnik, let me know and I'll send you some flocking paper to reduce internal reflections as well as some instructions for some simple improvements.
If you're not married to the idea of your stereographs being medium format, the 35mm Stereo Realist is a really nice stereo camera, with adjustable focus, aperture ranging from f/3.5 (or f/2.8, depending on model) up to f/22, and shutter speeds ranging from 1s to 1/150s plus B and T settings. I have one, and I love mine. I usually shoot color negative in mine, and have a hybrid process for creating stereo cards from them, suitable for viewing in either a Holmes Stereoscope (mine dates from 1900!) or an Owl Stereoscope.
The Holmes stereoscope was designed by Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (not the late US Supereme Court justice, who was his son); the Owl Stereoscope was designed by Dr. Brian May (you know, the lead guitarist of a little British rock band you may have heard of - Queen), who also used a Stereo Realist camera!
The Holmes stereoscope was designed by Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (not the late US Supereme Court justice, who was his son); the Owl Stereoscope was designed by Dr. Brian May (you know, the lead guitarist of a little British rock band you may have heard of - Queen), who also used a Stereo Realist camera!
As a note: I and other family members all have Brian May's Owl viewers; a solid product and great fun to use.
I've helped a friend run some stereoscopic projects, and we had some surprisingly good luck with stepping back from 'human scale'. Stereoscopic images where the cameras are ten feet or more apart and high up can give a rather wild "Giant's view" of things.
Assuming you get the focus and camera angles right...
When they were REALLY wrong, then it wasn't too big of a deal, the effect just didn't work. But we had a few come out where it was just 'weird'. Caused a friend to almost throw up while trying to view it, and I found the 3D effect would keep trying to sort of 'pop into view' and breaking down over and over again with a rather disorientating sensation... So maybe keep a bucket handy and sit down before viewing your tests? The human brain apparently doesn't like it when you get too 'creative' with abusing its functions.
But after 'mysteriously' getting a second C330 awhile back, I've been thinking of getting back into doing that kind of thing. Seemed fun, and I want to try some more of it.
Assuming you get the focus and camera angles right...
When they were REALLY wrong, then it wasn't too big of a deal, the effect just didn't work. But we had a few come out where it was just 'weird'. Caused a friend to almost throw up while trying to view it, and I found the 3D effect would keep trying to sort of 'pop into view' and breaking down over and over again with a rather disorientating sensation... So maybe keep a bucket handy and sit down before viewing your tests? The human brain apparently doesn't like it when you get too 'creative' with abusing its functions.
But after 'mysteriously' getting a second C330 awhile back, I've been thinking of getting back into doing that kind of thing. Seemed fun, and I want to try some more of it.
Another vote for the Owl stereo viewer. I have a Stereo Realist for 35mm film. It works well, but the ergonomics are terrible. If I was buying again, I'd probably get a Revere 33 instead. I've also done a stereo with my medium format Bronica. Here's a cross-eye view.
Orchids in Stereo by Howard Sandler, on Flickr
You don't have to have a dedicated stereo camera or even two cameras. You can use any camera if the subject is not moving. You just take two pictures using the "cha cha" technique; i.e. move the camera slightly laterally, preferably on a tripod, between the two shots, or displace the camera a lot for a hyperstereo shot (good for landscapes).
True stereo cameras, or two synchronized cameras, really shine of course, when there's action or a single decisive moment, like in the shot below of the lady and child. I try to look for those opportunities when I'm out with the Stereo Realist.
Canadian tulip festival, Ottawa by Howard Sandler, on Flickr
The thing is, I'm not convinced there is much advantage to medium format for stereo for the way most of us look at stereo photos today (on screens or with viewers for small index-card sized prints or tablet/smartphone screens). An enthusiast of medium format stereo above mentioned a slide viewer, and perhaps one will see an advantage in that case. Full disclosure: I've never personally looked at a medium format stereo slide pair in a slide viewer. Personally I gave up on E6 film last year due to the difficulty of local processing, so slides are out for me. For other viewing techniques, I think you just don't need medium format resolution. The negative for the shot above is Realist format, about 23x23mm, and I've reduced the resolution a lot for this web view, compared to the parallel-view 4x6 inch stereo card I printed to use with my viewer. When you view it in stereo cross-eye, does the resolution really look lacking?
Orchids in Stereo by Howard Sandler, on FlickrYou don't have to have a dedicated stereo camera or even two cameras. You can use any camera if the subject is not moving. You just take two pictures using the "cha cha" technique; i.e. move the camera slightly laterally, preferably on a tripod, between the two shots, or displace the camera a lot for a hyperstereo shot (good for landscapes).
True stereo cameras, or two synchronized cameras, really shine of course, when there's action or a single decisive moment, like in the shot below of the lady and child. I try to look for those opportunities when I'm out with the Stereo Realist.
Canadian tulip festival, Ottawa by Howard Sandler, on FlickrThe thing is, I'm not convinced there is much advantage to medium format for stereo for the way most of us look at stereo photos today (on screens or with viewers for small index-card sized prints or tablet/smartphone screens). An enthusiast of medium format stereo above mentioned a slide viewer, and perhaps one will see an advantage in that case. Full disclosure: I've never personally looked at a medium format stereo slide pair in a slide viewer. Personally I gave up on E6 film last year due to the difficulty of local processing, so slides are out for me. For other viewing techniques, I think you just don't need medium format resolution. The negative for the shot above is Realist format, about 23x23mm, and I've reduced the resolution a lot for this web view, compared to the parallel-view 4x6 inch stereo card I printed to use with my viewer. When you view it in stereo cross-eye, does the resolution really look lacking?
Last edited:
To all the naysayers -- don't knock it 'till you've tried it! I'm quite sure you will be surprised if you do.
I do agree with Howard on one thing: if all you intend to do with your photos is view them cross-eyed on a screen, there's no point in shooting medium format. Heck, most of my best cross-eyed photos are cha-chas taken with my phone camera. But stereoscopy is a demanding medium if you want a truly immersive experience, and I would never say that cross-eyed photos are particularly immersive. The horizontal field of view when viewing cross-eyed pics on a digital screen is quite small. When I want the best in stereo photography, I want to feel like I'm standing back in the place where I took the photo.
The advantage of medium format for stereoscopy is as a display medium. It doesn't matter if you have twin 4K displays, if you put them in a viewer to increase the horizontal field of view, you will see the grid of pixels overlayed on the image. Worse, this grid matches up in both eyes and will be fused as you view the image, looking like a hazy mesh covering the entire image. Digital cameras are incredible and can capture amazing resolution. But how are you going to be able to view all that resolution? Even a 4K screen only amounts to 8 megapixels. Digital display media simply have not caught up to the image acquisition technology for immersive, 3D applications.
When you shoot medium format slides, the resolution you see is the resolution you captured on the film. There simply doesn't exist any display medium that can hold a candle to film in terms of line pairs per mm. This is important, because it allows you to display the images side by side and use a simple optical viewer.
I really recommend shooting slides in a Sputnik and viewing in a backlit handheld viewer. You won't be disappointed. In terms of sharing your work, there are two active MF3D folios in US/Canada where you can share your work and view the work of others. Slide film might not be around forever, so get in while you can!
I do agree with Howard on one thing: if all you intend to do with your photos is view them cross-eyed on a screen, there's no point in shooting medium format. Heck, most of my best cross-eyed photos are cha-chas taken with my phone camera. But stereoscopy is a demanding medium if you want a truly immersive experience, and I would never say that cross-eyed photos are particularly immersive. The horizontal field of view when viewing cross-eyed pics on a digital screen is quite small. When I want the best in stereo photography, I want to feel like I'm standing back in the place where I took the photo.
The advantage of medium format for stereoscopy is as a display medium. It doesn't matter if you have twin 4K displays, if you put them in a viewer to increase the horizontal field of view, you will see the grid of pixels overlayed on the image. Worse, this grid matches up in both eyes and will be fused as you view the image, looking like a hazy mesh covering the entire image. Digital cameras are incredible and can capture amazing resolution. But how are you going to be able to view all that resolution? Even a 4K screen only amounts to 8 megapixels. Digital display media simply have not caught up to the image acquisition technology for immersive, 3D applications.
When you shoot medium format slides, the resolution you see is the resolution you captured on the film. There simply doesn't exist any display medium that can hold a candle to film in terms of line pairs per mm. This is important, because it allows you to display the images side by side and use a simple optical viewer.
I really recommend shooting slides in a Sputnik and viewing in a backlit handheld viewer. You won't be disappointed. In terms of sharing your work, there are two active MF3D folios in US/Canada where you can share your work and view the work of others. Slide film might not be around forever, so get in while you can!
FWIW, this isn't mine but...........https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/fs-wista-twin-lens-4x5-camera-stereo-also.169983/
Oh, interesting. Maybe @B.S.Kumar or @Anton Lukoszevieze might be kind enough to join the thread with some thoughts on it. [I'm now curious about how that camera handles the inner bellows.]
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
- Messages
- 797
- Format
- 35mm
In terms of a love/hate camera, the Sputnik is up there with the Kodak Medalist imo.
I'm not trying to put you off the Sputnik but you do need to know what you're letting yourself in for. I read up on the failings of the Sputnik and still went for it. It's about the best bang per buck MF3D you can buy. Think of it as half finished when it came off the production line and it's you that has to do the rest of the work.
It has light leaks. There are cool looking 3D printing work arounds for that. Until then, cover any potential sources of light leakage with black electricians tape. It uses a red window. If I miss frame #1, I have to remove the tape (indoors) and go into the dark to rewind the film and start again. Otherwise it's only 5 shots for that roll.
You are supposed to focus using the joke of a dark circular ground glass, then switch to the sports finder for composition. I bypass the ground glass and scale focus.
The winding knob is way too stiff. It can be dismantled and made easier to use.
The shiny Bakelite internals could do with being flocked.
fwir, the middle elements benefit from having their edges darkened with a Sharpie to improve contrast.
The stereo pairs should be mounted. Using them as is has left/right the wrong way round. (Not a fault of the camera.) I'm going to put up with that and see how long it takes the family to notice.
Just like the Medalist, once I see the results, all hassles are forgiven. If E6 becomes unavailable, I'll be gutted.
I'm not trying to put you off the Sputnik but you do need to know what you're letting yourself in for. I read up on the failings of the Sputnik and still went for it. It's about the best bang per buck MF3D you can buy. Think of it as half finished when it came off the production line and it's you that has to do the rest of the work.
It has light leaks. There are cool looking 3D printing work arounds for that. Until then, cover any potential sources of light leakage with black electricians tape. It uses a red window. If I miss frame #1, I have to remove the tape (indoors) and go into the dark to rewind the film and start again. Otherwise it's only 5 shots for that roll.
You are supposed to focus using the joke of a dark circular ground glass, then switch to the sports finder for composition. I bypass the ground glass and scale focus.
The winding knob is way too stiff. It can be dismantled and made easier to use.
The shiny Bakelite internals could do with being flocked.
fwir, the middle elements benefit from having their edges darkened with a Sharpie to improve contrast.
The stereo pairs should be mounted. Using them as is has left/right the wrong way round. (Not a fault of the camera.) I'm going to put up with that and see how long it takes the family to notice.
Just like the Medalist, once I see the results, all hassles are forgiven. If E6 becomes unavailable, I'll be gutted.
I’d defiantly suggest 35mm and not 120 as your stereo medium. Economy, for one, the Realist formula gives 29 pairs images. Also, the Realist people Really thought this out and produced a ton of essential and helpful supplies. As to lenses, sharpness etc, with the Realist there are a few choices. The first 10,000 cameras made (out of 125,000 total) have 3.5 35mm Ilex lenses (1947-48). Most agree This was the best and sharpest lens of all. Most have a David White Anastigmat 3.5 35mm which absolutely amazing itself. These are three element lenses. Four element 2.8 lenses available were the Kodak Ektar (rare), David White Anastigmat 2.8, “Germany” 2.8 and the Rare Earth Germany matched lenses used on the Stereo Realist Custom (1959) This lens has the incredibly high resolution of 300 lines per mm. The German lenses were made by Steinhal Munchen. Also these folks made a Redu Focus attachment for the Realist, for wide angle images with a fl. Rated at 25mm.
I'm instrested in stereo photo too.
Here are some models (both medium and 135/Leica format): https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/film-stars-stereo-camera-115601
I found more here: https://liconomecanophile.weebly.com/steacutereacuteo.html
My dreams: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Stereflektoskop#cite_note-RFB2-5
http://www.stereoskopie.com/Stereok...Roll/body_stereflektoskop_45_x_107__roll.html
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Heidoscop
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Rolleidoscop
And here is an intresting magazine: https://stereoworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SW_V24_4.pdf
Here are some models (both medium and 135/Leica format): https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/film-stars-stereo-camera-115601
I found more here: https://liconomecanophile.weebly.com/steacutereacuteo.html
My dreams: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Stereflektoskop#cite_note-RFB2-5
http://www.stereoskopie.com/Stereok...Roll/body_stereflektoskop_45_x_107__roll.html
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Heidoscop
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Rolleidoscop
And here is an intresting magazine: https://stereoworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SW_V24_4.pdf
I have a Zeiss VR One goggle set that I think can be turned into a stereo set viewer rather easily.
it has a sliding tray that with a bit of plastic work could be turned into a slide holder with a thin backlight.
Anyone have any ideas or know of anyone who has done this (I have searched!?
it has a sliding tray that with a bit of plastic work could be turned into a slide holder with a thin backlight.
Anyone have any ideas or know of anyone who has done this (I have searched!
?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2013
- Messages
- 27
- Format
- Medium Format
Henri Peyre‘s page on the Heidescop is now offline, but continues on way back. He provides helpful info that applies to other cameras. While it is in French, you can drop it in Google translate, https://web.archive.org/web/20190301122310/http://www.photo-stereo.com/heidoscop-6x13.html
I agree with iandvaag, you feel like you are there, much more so than 2d
I agree with iandvaag, you feel like you are there, much more so than 2d
Another vote for the Owl stereo viewer. I have a Stereo Realist for 35mm film. It works well, but the ergonomics are terrible. If I was buying again, I'd probably get a Revere 33 instead. I've also done a stereo with my medium format Bronica. Here's a cross-eye view.
You don't have to have a dedicated stereo camera or even two cameras. You can use any camera if the subject is not moving. You just take two pictures using the "cha cha" technique; i.e. move the camera slightly laterally, preferably on a tripod, between the two shots, or displace the camera a lot for a hyperstereo shot (good for landscapes).
True stereo cameras, or two synchronized cameras, really shine of course, when there's action or a single decisive moment, like in the shot below of the lady and child. I try to look for those opportunities when I'm out with the Stereo Realist.
..your stereo pairs are the wrong way around for my viewing technique, and the 2-shot is a little too far apart to 'fuse'. Can you repost??
Neil, I have the one of the woman and child, and many others in parallel viewing form here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsandler/albums/72157674884839827
I saw this device while searching for Mamiya Universal Press goodies at my local dealer. Attach this to a Universal Press 127mm lens and you can get stereo images:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Mamiya-Pre...226485?hash=item3424e413f5:g:AFkAAOSwR9BewpXe
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Mamiya-Pre...226485?hash=item3424e413f5:g:AFkAAOSwR9BewpXe
Wow. Probably too small to fit over a 77mm filter size lens on an RB67, but I'd enjoy having one of those that size...
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2005
- Messages
- 562
- Format
- Multi Format
Images presented in cross-eyed format drive me crazy. Parallel-parallel is the "true" way;-) I used a single TLR mounted on a macro focusing rail turned sideways giving complete control of separation when shooting static subjects. Also used a 6x4.5 camera hand held with the weight shift technique to create super slide pairs for standard 35 stereo viewers or, even better, good single 35 viewers mounted side by side. I have dual medium format projector slide shows with 6x6 and 6x4.5 pairs and dual 35 projector shows with 2x2 mounts for standard and super slides. Also have traditional 3D projector shows for 5 and 7 sprocket mounted pairs from original 35 stereo cameras. It's all fun!
thanks, I've seen them - lots of fun. Don' t most people learn the parallel viewing technique rather than crossed eyes?
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |