The person best able to answer your question, Chuck Holzer, is unfortunately no long with us.  He was a treasure trove of this kind of technical information and I miss our e-mail exchages.  What I've thought about doing, which would not involve determining window placement and notch distances, is to place a wire frame in front of the Sputnik, right  at the edge of the image area.  In fact by removing that center piece in the Sputnik film path, the image could be expanded to make room for such a frame.  When mounting I would somehow, and this would be the tricky part, match up the frame to some reference point.  Another approach would be for someone to manufacture a precise double hole punch, which would be similar to the viewmaster hole punch.  And then you would need a mount that precisely placed the film chips.  The original 3D Stereo mounts had plastic guides that you could use to line up the film.  The problem with a manufactured solution is that there clearly isn't that much of a market for MF 3D products.  The fact that the 3dstereo website still shows cardboard mounts available tells me that it isn't worth it to sink $8,000US into a plastic manufacturing die to make MF stereo mounts.  I think this has been discussed before but it's really too bad that 70mm film had died out by the time 3D Stereo introduced their camera.  70mm would have been perfect for MF 3D as something akin to the RBT mounts could have been made.

Steve

---

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (2)

.

The backs that I've seen for Graflex, Hasselblad, etc. are 70mm.  BTW, there are some cameras that used a spiked wheel to measure the film for frame spacing.  This wheel put dotted lines on the top and bottom of the film.  If something like this could be fitted to a MF 3D camera then those dotted lines could conceivably be used to provide vertical alignment.

Steve

 

 I think this has been discussed before but it's really too bad that 70mm film had died out by the time 3D Stereo introduced their camera.  70mm would have been perfect for MF 3D as something akin to the RBT mounts could have been made.

Steve

 

 

 I think this has been discussed before but it's really too bad that 70mm film had died out by the time 3D Stereo introduced their camera.  70mm would have been perfect for MF 3D as something akin to the RBT mounts could have been made.

Steve

For reasons unknown to me, my rebutal message was not shown.

Hi Steve,
How many MF shooters would approve of the 3D World camera being even heavier if it did include a 70mm film transport system? As Dave Kesner wrote, he enjoyed mounting MF slides, and I believe that Dave has, correctly,  mounted more MF slides than anyone else in our MF community. 

DON

> As Dave Kesner wrote, he enjoyed mounting MF
> slides, and I believe that Dave has, correctly, mounted more MF slides
> than anyone else in our MF community.

 

I may now have to get it out and see if I remember how to take a decent image in one shot without the immediate feedback of digital or the helping hand of Photoshop *{;-)

I know exactly what you mean! I got my trusty Rolleidoscop out a couple of weeks back and shot a couple of films. Got the results back yesterday. Not disastrous, but probably half a stop underexposed...

I also dusted of my favourite Realist - Ektar lenses, Rochwite polarising filters, used for may years by Paul Wing - at the end of April and took it to the Galapagos Islands. These results look pretty much on the money...

So, now I have to set to and mount up the pairs...

Maybe I'll scan them first (unless that just defeats the whole purpose! :) )

Bob Aldridge

> I also dusted of my favourite Realist - Ektar lenses, Rochwite polarising
> filters, used for may years by Paul Wing - at the end of April and took it
> to the Galapagos Islands. These results look pretty much on the money...

>> I believe that Dave has, correctly, mounted more MF slides
>> than anyone else in our MF community.

> Although I have enjoyed mounting my MF slides I, by no means, have mounted
> more than others.

Hi Bob,

I love my Ektar lenses too, but you know they are thoriated.  Mine put out around 152 cpm.  My geiger counter is a cheaper one so I'm not sure if that's Gamma rays, Alpha particles or beta particles.  I keep the camera in a beta blocking box and I get no reading on the geiger counter outside it.  There was a discussion on this on the StereoRealist group some time ago.

Steve

 

Hi Bob,

I love my Ektar lenses too, but you know they are thoriated.  Mine put out around 152 cpm.  My geiger counter is a cheaper one so I'm not sure if that's Gamma rays, Alpha particles or beta particles.  I keep the camera in a beta blocking box and I get no reading on the geiger counter outside it.  There was a discussion on this on the StereoRealist group some time ago.

Steve

Well, Paul Wing used it for many decades and lived to a pretty good age. I use it only occasionally (I took my Belplasca to China and my RBT to Rome and Northumberland) so I suspect I'll get away with the radiation from the Ektars!

In any case, they don't seem to affect the film living in fairly close proximity and that's only shielded by the thin shutter blades. The Rochwhite polarising filters incorporate a reasonably thich aluminium lens cover...

Bob

>
> I love my Ektar lenses too, but you know they are thoriated. Mine
> put out around 152 cpm. My geiger counter is a cheaper one so I'm
> not sure if that's Gamma rays, Alpha particles or beta particles. I
> keep the camera in a beta blocking box and I get no reading on the
> geiger counter outside it. There was a discussion on this on the
> StereoRealist group some time ago.

Hi Brian,

I don't want to argue with you so I would invite anyone's who's interested to research Thorium on their own to see what particles and rays are emitted by it.  I just think users should be aware that the lenses are hot.  Don't get me wrong, they are amazing lenses.

Steve

 

Hi Brian,

I don't want to argue with you so I would invite anyone's who's interested to research Thorium on their own to see what particles and rays are emitted by it.  I just think users should be aware that the lenses are hot.  Don't get me wrong, they are amazing lenses.

Steve

OK, Steve, but it's not like I'm carrying a chunk of pure Thorium, totally unprotected, around with me all the time, is it?

If I were to use this camera as my only camera, I might get a radioactive dose equivalent to a X-Ray roughly every two years. But I don't. So I'll get the X-Ray dose every decade or longer. I'll live with that. (In both senses...)

Sometimes safety concerns can be over-stated...

Bob

> Not more slides, but more CORRECTLY (Did I make a
> point? :))

Hi Don, I don't recall 70mm adding all that extra weight.  I have a 70mm back for my Graflex XL which allowed you to take fifty 6x9 images and it weighs about the same as my other 6x9 backs.  Of course, this discussion is purely academic since 70mm film was near death at the time the 3D World camera was marketed.  Had it been produced in the late 60s early 70s, 70mm would have been a viable and desirable alternative.

Steve