Subject: Re: compositing, photoshoping stereo images?
Date: 2008-01-10 20:14:23
From: John Hart

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" wrote:

>
> Hi
>
> Has anyone done a shoot with a sputnik or similiar, the scanning the
> images, twiddled with them and then printed them out to make a copy
> back onto 120 film?
>
> Was thinking of doing a composit with that technique and A3 sized

prints.

I have scanned 35mm and 6x7cm images, post-processed them, and output
them (as well as digital-camera derived stuff) back to 70mm film.
The "output" step is the hard one, I think.

1. I got a bunch of MF stereo slides made by sending the digital
files to www.slides.com . They print to film at $5/slide using an MF
film recorder that was used to make IMAX masters (hence the 70mm
perforated stock). The first batch they did for me in 2006 was very
good. But just today I got another batch of 39 pairs that was awful
(out of focus, poor contrast control). I suspect QC issues. Maybe
these machines are getting old and cranky. Hopefully they will fix
the problems.....

2. For comparison purposes, in 2006 I printed 8.5x11 and 13x19 print
pairs of some of the same images used in #1. The prints were made
using highest Q settings and best papers on the Epson R800 and 3800,
and were viewed using my Mirscope viewers (www.mirscope.com). The
general concensus of folks like Don Lopp and Dave Kesner that saw
both, side by side, was that the print-viewing was actually somewhat
better than the MF film-recorder transparency viewing (which itself
was superior to 35mm hand viewing).

Based on the above, I would speculate that perhaps making 8.5x11, or
8.5 square prints then photographing them might indeed produce fairly
good transparency pairs. But there will be a lot of calibrations to
be done to get the color and contrast right. It would be nice if the
prints could be natural, because then they could be used for
something other than just the copying. But I doubt this will be
possible (e.g. the prints probably will have to be low in contrast to
avoid blowing out the film). Interesting to try though. Whether or
not it will have cost parity or any cost advantage with direct
recorder output at $5/pop (assuming slides.com can get it right
again) is TBD I guess?

John