Stereoscopy wants synched shutters, doesn't she?

[Europan]

Ahm, (slight shaking in the voice) Ladies and Gentlemen

There is this professional portrait photographer, he has three shops in London, England, successful guy, who has built a camera for 3" by 3" images. I have seen a picture of his camera lately, you know everybody, the world wide web, and what I've actually discovered is, ehm, that he has the two shutters run not together, I mean, not synchronized in any way but something like da-dash shortly one after the other.

Can anyone find an explanation for such an arrangement, I mean, how will you enjoy that kind of stereos?

 

[Q.G.]

Where can we see that picture of the camera on the world wide web?

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Might offer some interesting photographs with a mobile subject unsynched like that.

 

[holmburgers]

It might be very interesting if the background remains static.

I'm confused as to why your voice is shaking....

 

[Europan]

I'm confused as to why your voice is shaking....

That was a sort of directing order, wanted to indicate how an actor could perform for an embarrassing issue.

The photographer’s name is William Green or William Friese-Greene. The camera is from 1890. Patent together with Frederick Henry Varley

http://books.google.ch/books?id=C1d...gK#v=onepage&q=frederick henry varley&f=false

 

[holmburgers]

The link sent me to pages about a 3D cine-camera; but nonetheless interesting.

I think to answer your question (or was it rhetorical?), yes, she wants synchronized shutters. I think the result with a moving subject would be kind of a disorienting double-vision; however, it might create kind of a ghost-impression that could be cool, assuming the camera itself remains static.

I find it amusing that this "successful guy" you speak of happened to live a hundred years ago.

 

[ic-racer]

This guy? (quote from the www)

William Friese-Green created the first 3-D anaglypic motion pictures in 1889 which first went on show to the public in 1893. These anaglypic films designated as plasticons or plastigrams enjoyed great success during the 1920's. The films used a single film with the green image emulsion on one side of the film and the red image emulsion on the other. In 1922, an interactive plasticon opened at the Rivoli Theater in New York titled "Movies of the Future". The film provided the viewer with an optional ending. The happy ending was viewed using the green filter whilst the tragic ending could be seen using the red filter.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well I've been looking at a British tailboard camera which can be used as a Stereo camera, this is what I'd use if I can find both either separately or together. I restore TP shutters

No problem with synching two shutters and in production in the 1890's

Ian

 

[holmburgers]

Quote, "The films used a single film with the green image emulsion on one side of the film and the red image emulsion on the other."

Wouldn't this result in a black image? I've been toying with this same idea; a "monopack anaglyph", that is, a subtractive system that only requires 1 projector.

What am I missing here?

 

[Ian Grant]

No, you have two separate negatives side by side on a single plate (the camera has a baffle) like a stereo pair. It's how they are recombined that gives the stereo effect.

The google link doesn't work so I can't check out this guys exact process (it's also late and I'm a few time zones ahead of the US ). Usually with B&W stereo the pair of images are converted to positives, lantern slides, and projected through two different colour filters and a set of coloured glasses used to see the 3D images, Green one eye Red the other. It's easy to look up.

Ian

 

[holmburgers]

with B&W stereo the pair of images are converted to positives, lantern slides, and projected through two different colour filters and a set of coloured glasses used to see the 3D images, Green one eye Red the other. It's easy to look up.

This much I'm familiar with, but this is additve. Would there be a way to have a subtractive+glasses 3D system? I need to sit in a quiet room and meditate or something to think it through, which at the moment I can't do.

Anyways, just something to think about... coupled with toning, and cementing the two together you could have an integral anaglyph slide.

 

[Q.G.]

It doesn't matter whether it is additive or subtractive, as long as they are complementary.
Or rather, using narrow band pass filters, the colours can be any ones you like, don't have to be complementary, as long as one of the two filters passes only one of the two colours you select to use, the other filter only the other colour.
Or rather (again - sorry!) as long as one filter blocks the one colour, the other filter blocks the other colour, they can pass a much wider band. So narrow band block filters would do to.

 

[Europan]

Thank you so far, fellows

The point is that a colleague of mine who had the very Greene camera of 1890 in his hands insists on that it is a stereoscopic device. We were already in a see-saw like Duplex - Stereo - Duplex! - Stereo! so I decided to put the question out.

I for myself don’t believe much in stereoscopy with William Friese-Greene. It seems I’ve touched a British national emblem because even small errors are hardly correctable. For instance, Willie Green cannot have married a swiss baroness, Victoria Mariana Helena Friese. There aren’t any titles of nobility in Switzerland any more since the confederational constitution of 1848. Also the name Friese is absolutely not swiss but rather german or maybe austrian. She must have been the daugther of a foreign baron. I don’t believe anything anymore until hard proof.

Most certainly the portrait photographer Friese-Greene got caught by the idea of motion pictures. It was his son who dealt with stereoscopy.

 

[Ian Grant]

You may be reading rather glamourised fictitious details about Greene. As there was a movie made about him it's likely that bits were embellished for the film rather than being strictly accurate.

The Patents etc for his early stereo cine work exist, he gave public demonstrations and there was much authoritative writing at the time in photographic magazines and scientific journals including Scientific American.

I can't access anything in the link you posted but maybe you need to check some other sources. I can't find anything theat says his wife was a Baroness

Ian

 

[Europan]

She was said to be the daughter of a swiss baron: http://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk/BTNCollingsAE&K.htm

Green was in Paris in 1888. Has he met Le Prince?