Header banner

MF3D-group Conversations Photos Files All groups About
<< Previous Thread Latest attempt at duplicating Next Thread >>

Subject: Latest attempt at duplicating
Date: 2011-02-15 20:15:44
From: John Thurston
A while ago, I mentioned having some slides recorded at
GammaTech in New Mexico. The results left a promising
impression, but dissatisfaction with the specific images. I
suspected that my scanning technique and technology was not
up to the task.

In this iteration, I've send a couple of un-cut sections of
film down and had them scanned (by GammaTech). By sending
un-cut film and having it scanned as a single 6x17 @3200ppi,
it was $15 a scan. They returned my film and a DVD of scans.
I cropped and aligned the images and constructed a 6x12
@1,809ppi image which I sent back to have recorded back onto
film ($10 because it is a single 6x12). The results just
arrived today.

I am much more favorably impressed with the results. They
certainly are not originals, but they are much better than my
earlier attempt. The gradients are smoother and the contrast
is better than from my scan.

I'm impressed enough that I'm going to be trying a couple
more. I haven't thought very much about how I might use this
technique with already cut film. Their price on a 6x6 is $10,
so it costs $5 more per pair, but I'm more concerned about
matching the scanning between halves of the pairs.
________________________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us
Subject: Re: Latest attempt at duplicating
Date: 2011-02-16 12:34:38
From: Boris Starosta
I just sent GammaTech a file to be printed on an 8x10 sheet of transparency film.  I was able to fit eight stereo PAIRS of 52x42 landscape size images onto the 8x10 sheet.  The source images are digital (and indeed these images were unobtainable through film photography).  

I'm looking forward to the results, because I love the MF3d format for gallery installation and image display.  So long as the quality is good, this will be an economical way for me to "dupe" my digital images into the MF3d format.  You'll all soon (uh, within a year or two, given the frequency) see examples in the folio.

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, John Thurston <juneau3d@thurstons.us> wrote:
 

A while ago, I mentioned having some slides recorded at
GammaTech in New Mexico. The results left a promising
impression, but dissatisfaction with the specific images. I
suspected that my scanning technique and technology was not
up to the task.

In this iteration, I've send a couple of un-cut sections of
film down and had them scanned (by GammaTech). By sending
un-cut film and having it scanned as a single 6x17 @3200ppi,
it was $15 a scan. They returned my film and a DVD of scans.
I cropped and aligned the images and constructed a 6x12
@1,809ppi image which I sent back to have recorded back onto
film ($10 because it is a single 6x12). The results just
arrived today.

I am much more favorably impressed with the results. They
certainly are not originals, but they are much better than my
earlier attempt. The gradients are smoother and the contrast
is better than from my scan.

I'm impressed enough that I'm going to be trying a couple
more. I haven't thought very much about how I might use this
technique with already cut film. Their price on a 6x6 is $10,
so it costs $5 more per pair, but I'm more concerned about
matching the scanning between halves of the pairs.
________________________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us




--
A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems -- Alfréd Rényi


Subject: Re: Latest attempt at duplicating
Date: 2011-02-16 16:17:19
From: John Thurston
Boris Starosta wrote:
> I just sent GammaTech a file to be printed on an 8x10
> sheet of transparency film. I was able to fit eight
> stereo PAIRS of 52x42 landscape size images onto the 8x10
> sheet. The source images are digital (and indeed these
> images were unobtainable through film photography).

Why did you settle on the 8x10, Boris? Just judging by
price, those are going to cost you $10/pair which is the
same as I was paying for a pair printed on 120 film (as a
single 6x12). Did you already space them for mounting and is
your plan to cut the combined pair out (as a pair) and shove
them in a mount?

> ...You'll all soon (uh, within a year or two, given the
> frequency) see examples in the folio.

You'll get to see one of mine as soon as FolioA comes round
to you. It is done from my flat-bed scan. The images I
received yesterday, based on the GammaTech scans, are better.
--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us
Subject: Re: Latest attempt at duplicating
Date: 2011-02-17 10:26:04
From: Boris Starosta
they are already spaced for mounting as a pair.  I assumed it would be cheaper with the larger film, but maybe my assumption is incorrect.
will a properly spaced pair of 52x52mm images (total dims are then 114x52) fit on their 6x12?  if so, that would be cheaper.
the large format sheet film will probably be heavier/stiffer and easier to handle than the 120mm roll film they would use for 6x12 imaging?
thanks for feedback, I'll need to research further if I send them some full frame square format images.
I'll have the film next week and will keep the list posted.

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:17 PM, John Thurston <juneau3d@thurstons.us> wrote:
Boris Starosta wrote:
> I just sent GammaTech a file to be printed on an 8x10
> sheet of transparency film.  I was able to fit eight
> stereo PAIRS of 52x42 landscape size images onto the 8x10
> sheet.  The source images are digital (and indeed these
> images were unobtainable through film photography).

Why did you settle on the 8x10, Boris? Just judging by
price, those are going to cost you $10/pair which is the
same as I was paying for a pair printed on 120 film (as a
single 6x12). Did you already space them for mounting and is
your plan to cut the combined pair out (as a pair) and shove
them in a mount?

> ...You'll all soon (uh, within a year or two, given the
> frequency) see examples in the folio.

You'll get to see one of mine as soon as FolioA comes round
to you. It is done from my flat-bed scan. The images I
received yesterday, based on the GammaTech scans, are better.
--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/

<*> Your email settings:
   Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/join
   (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
   MF3D-group-digest@yahoogroups.com
   MF3D-group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   MF3D-group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




--
A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems -- Alfréd Rényi


Subject: Re: Latest attempt at duplicating
Date: 2011-02-17 10:36:25
From: Boris Starosta
reviewing gammatech specs for 6x12 film, I see that I could fit a properly spaced pair onto that film if the images were 49 or maybe 50mm wide.  they would just barely fit.  52x52 pairs will fit also, but with insufficient septum, requiring cutting them up and individual re-mounting (not a big deal).  Either way, it would be a full (or nearly) square frame image pair for the same cost I'm paying for landscape format 52x42mm pairs via the 8x10 sheet film...  thanks for the tip!

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:17 PM, John Thurston <juneau3d@thurstons.us> wrote:
Boris Starosta wrote:
> I just sent GammaTech a file to be printed on an 8x10
> sheet of transparency film.  I was able to fit eight
> stereo PAIRS of 52x42 landscape size images onto the 8x10
> sheet.  The source images are digital (and indeed these
> images were unobtainable through film photography).

Why did you settle on the 8x10, Boris? Just judging by
price, those are going to cost you $10/pair which is the
same as I was paying for a pair printed on 120 film (as a
single 6x12). Did you already space them for mounting and is
your plan to cut the combined pair out (as a pair) and shove
them in a mount?

> ...You'll all soon (uh, within a year or two, given the
> frequency) see examples in the folio.

You'll get to see one of mine as soon as FolioA comes round
to you. It is done from my flat-bed scan. The images I
received yesterday, based on the GammaTech scans, are better.
--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/

<*> Your email settings:
   Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/join
   (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
   MF3D-group-digest@yahoogroups.com
   MF3D-group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   MF3D-group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




--
A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems -- Alfréd Rényi


Subject: fitting images on GammaTech film formats [was: Latest attempt at dup
Date: 2011-02-17 12:02:38
From: John Thurston
Boris Starosta wrote:
> reviewing gammatech specs for 6x12 film, I see that I
> could fit a properly spaced pair onto that film if the
> images were 49 or maybe 50mm wide. they would just
> barely fit. 52x52 pairs will fit also, but with
> insufficient septum, requiring cutting them up and
> individual re-mounting (not a big deal).

Yes, I've opted for cutting and re-aligning in a mount as I
wanted to use the 80x140 plastic mounts with 52mm apertures.
By setting the window as part of building my monolithic
image to send to GammaTech, there is just enough wiggle-room
left in the final film to let me mount it after cutting
apart the pair.

A pre-mounted image for 50mm wide apertures spaced at 62mm
would be 50+(62-50)+50 [that's Left/Septum/Right] or 112mm.
The available space on their 60x120 format is 54x108.8 so it
isn't going to fit.

Working backwards (where X is the width of the aperture), we
need X+62 <= 108.8 to create a pre-mounted pair on this film
format. This means that 46.8 is the widest aperture (spaced
at 62mm) which can be accommodated as a pre-mounted pair.
I'm not aware of any readily available mounts with 45mm
apertures. I really think that 40mm wide apertures are the
only way you will be using pre-mounted pairs printed on
GammaTech's 6x12 format.

It looks like if you want:
+ Premounted landscape 50x40 put them on an 8x10 sheet
+ Premounted portrait 40x50 do them as 6x12 on 120

If you want square apertures larger than 46mm, you'll need
do them as a 6x12 on 120 and post-mount them.

fwiw, one of the images I just received back is 52x52mm, but
I have masked it down with black (in the image I sent them)
so the actual image is less than 52mm high. With a quick
pre-view, I think the black film is opaque enough to work as
a mask, but I haven't yet mounted it and seen how it looks
in my brighter viewer.
--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us