Subject: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-10 18:02:47
From: bob_karambelas

Just wondering if anybody has ever tried or thought about using an electronic cutter to make custom MF mounts. The items I see are the Cricut Explore and Silhouette Cameo

http://www.amazon.com/Cricut-Explore-Wireless-Cutting-Machine/dp/B00TTESL18/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005Y1CPSU/

And they're in the retail craft stores like Michael's, JoAnn, etc.

With a little digging, it seems like they'll cut up to 1mm thickness, which should be enough., provided you could find the right material.

I have to think you could improve on the 3D World mounts. And it would be nice to be able to adjust the frame, like if you wanted to cut out a little foreground.

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-10 18:15:51
From: Dan Vint

I would think that a, forgive me, 3D printer
would be an easier way to go in the long run. Not
sure what the cost of materials would be, but it
would certainly be more flexible and repeatable.

At 05:02 PM 8/10/2015, you wrote:

>Just wondering if anybody has ever tried or
>thought about using an electronic cutter to make
>custom MF mounts. The items I see are the Cricut Explore and Silhouette Cameo
>
>
><http://www.amazon.com/Cricut-Explore-Wireless-Cutting-Machine/dp/B00TTESL18/ref>http://www.amazon.com/Cricut-Explore-Wireless-Cutting-Machine/dp/B00TTESL18/
>
>
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005Y1CPSU/
>
>
>And they're in the retail craft stores like Michael's, JoAnn, etc.
>
>
>With a little digging, it seems like they'll cut
>up to 1mm thickness, which should be enough.,
>provided you could find the right material.
>
>
>I have to think you could improve on the 3D
>World mounts. And it would be nice to be able to
>adjust the frame, like if you wanted to cut out a little foreground.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Vint

Panoramic Photography
http://www.dvint.com

voice: 619-647-5780

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-11 09:34:57
From: bob_karambelas

Easier, no.

With a 3D printer, you'd have to do a 3D design, and the device is bigger and more expensive. The little cutters are under $200, simple 2D layout.

Precision and repeatability shouldn't be a problem. I was thinking of making cardboard foldovers; you could almost cut them by hand but a machine would be more precise.

Just curious whether anybody has tried it or has suggestions for card stock.

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

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-11 10:49:38
From: John Thurston

On 8/10/2015 4:02 PM, karambelas@gmail.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

> Just wondering if anybody has ever tried or thought about using an electronic cutter to make custom MF mounts.

I've certainly thought about it and heard from one person who
was also considering it. It hasn't, however, made it to the
top of my todo list.

My location puts me at a pretty severe disadvantage for this
experiment. I don't have easy access to paper suppliers or to
resellers where I can easily examine the various cutters.
Everything would have to be purchased and shipped before I
would know if it was suitable. I have enough other unfinished
projects that I haven't needed to pursue this one.
--
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-11 12:52:46
From: Timo Puhakka

My problem is that I already am saturated with stereo toys so that I am shy of getting more. I have a good stock of mounts that should keep me happy for some time, but it is nice to know that there is an option if I run out.

Timo

On 11-Aug-15, at 12:49 PM, John Thurston juneau3d@thurstons.us [MF3D-group] wrote:

On 8/10/2015 4:02 PM, karambelas@gmail.com [MF3D-group] wrote:
> Just wondering if anybody has ever tried or thought about using an electronic cutter to make custom MF mounts.

I've certainly thought about it and heard from one person who
was also considering it. It hasn't, however, made it to the
top of my todo list.

My location puts me at a pretty severe disadvantage for this
experiment. I don't have easy access to paper suppliers or to
resellers where I can easily examine the various cutters.
Everything would have to be purchased and shipped before I
would know if it was suitable. I have enough other unfinished
projects that I haven't needed to pursue this one.
--
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-11 13:34:53
From: bob_karambelas

That's my thinking, too. But I have a stash of the 3D Stereo cardboard mounts that I could get rid of, as long as I knew I could replace them. My plastic mounts won't last forever; when they run out, I think I'd rather make some cardboard mounts in the larger size.

I doubt I'll do it soon, but it's pretty intriguing.

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

Timo

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-11 16:38:27
From: Geoffrey S. Waldo

I've been lurking and watching the dialog about DIY mounts for MF3D. It is possible to make a set of reverse mold copies of a favorite mount ie front and back halves of a mount, in silicone, then cast urethane positive copies. I've done some of this and it was fun. But not extreme high throughput. Maybe 10 a day.

I've not done this for MF3D but for view master...

Should be easier for MF3D mounts. The plastic has the advantage of reversibility if you use pins and holes. I use Yupo polyester paper and a Cougar cutter for view master reels.

Sent from my iPhone

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

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-13 14:59:15
From: Steven Lederman

MF3D Folio member Ray Dillard and I were considering taking an example of each size of cardboard MF3D mount to a die-cutting place and getting a quote for having some made.

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-13 15:41:13
From: JR

Cardboard mounts are likely the cheapest, but they do have the drawback that they can warp, especially in the larger sizes typical of MF. Also, they must be cut very cleanly, otherwise little "fuzzies" around the edges can show.

If you are planning on taping your film clips to the mounts, you only need a single piece for each one. But, if the tape comes loose (which it may in time), the tape will possibly catch in the viewer or projector.

Otherwise, you will need 3 layers for laminated slip-ins or for foldover types. Vinyl die cuts very cleanly, but is usually not as stiff as desired (by itself).

One thought would be a stiff cardboard center (with a larger opening) and very thin vinyl layers on the outside (the smallest opening layer defining the edges of the image).

Other plastics can also work, but they should be black to prevent spurious reflections.

When choosing the material, also consider the type of adhesive that will work best with that material, be archival, and not "bleed", especially in a hot projector gate.

stereoscope3d@gmail.com

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Steven Lederman gongadin@rogers.com [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

MF3D Folio member Ray Dillard and I were considering taking an example of each size of cardboard MF3D mount to a die-cutting place and getting a quote for having some made.

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-13 16:00:52
From: John Thurston

On 8/13/2015 1:40 PM, JR stereoscope3d@gmail.com
[MF3D-group] wrote:

> Cardboard mounts are likely the cheapest, but they do have the drawback
> that they can warp, especially in the larger sizes typical of MF.

Like wood, paper products also have "grain". I am very
ignorant of the details, but I've often wondered if by
die-cutting mounts "on the bias", they would become more
stable and warp resistant when folded over. There would be
much more waste in production, but I suspect they would be
more stable in use. In their final state, the grain of each
side would run at right angles to the other.

> Also,
> they must be cut very cleanly, otherwise little "fuzzies" around the edges
> can show.

No argument there, JR.

It's worth noting, however, that one batch of my plastic
3D-World mounts had a consistent plastic "hair" in one
aperture. Before mounting in them I needed to carefully trim
that hair and smooth the remaining nib. Quality of
manufacture is not governed solely by choice of materials.

...

> When choosing the material, also consider the type of adhesive that will
> work best with that material, be archival, and not "bleed", especially in a
> hot projector gate.

While nice in theory, I think it is very unlikely that MF3D
images, mounted side-by-side in 80x132 (or 80x140) mounts,
will ever be projected. I hope that anyone who might
undertake to produce a new run of cardboard mounts will not
consider this to be a "must have" characteristic of their
mounts.

--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-13 16:15:22
From: JR

While MF stereo slides are not as likely to be projected as 35mm, they can be. And projected, especially on a large screen, they can be very striking, since they are even larger than Imax. I used to mount 6 x 9 MF stereo slides in the Wess 2D plastic mounts (individually), and project them with a pair of 3-1/4 x 4 lantern slide projectors, with the polarizers mounted externally.

stereoscope3d@gmail.com

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM, John Thurston juneau3d@thurstons.us [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

On 8/13/2015 1:40 PM, JR stereoscope3d@gmail.com
[MF3D-group] wrote:
> Cardboard mounts are likely the cheapest, but they do have the drawback
> that they can warp, especially in the larger sizes typical of MF.

Like wood, paper products also have "grain". I am very
ignorant of the details, but I've often wondered if by
die-cutting mounts "on the bias", they would become more
stable and warp resistant when folded over. There would be
much more waste in production, but I suspect they would be
more stable in use. In their final state, the grain of each
side would run at right angles to the other.

> Also,
> they must be cut very cleanly, otherwise little "fuzzies" around the edges
> can show.

No argument there, JR.

It's worth noting, however, that one batch of my plastic
3D-World mounts had a consistent plastic "hair" in one
aperture. Before mounting in them I needed to carefully trim
that hair and smooth the remaining nib. Quality of
manufacture is not governed solely by choice of materials.

...

> When choosing the material, also consider the type of adhesive that will
> work best with that material, be archival, and not "bleed", especially in a
> hot projector gate.

While nice in theory, I think it is very unlikely that MF3D
images, mounted side-by-side in 80x132 (or 80x140) mounts,
will ever be projected. I hope that anyone who might
undertake to produce a new run of cardboard mounts will not
consider this to be a "must have" characteristic of their
mounts.

--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-14 18:17:01
From: Don Lopp

     Hello JR,

     I was not aware that IMAX 70mm slides were smaller than our MF, 50mm x 50mm slides.

     Also I would consider 6 X 9 slides as being a bit impractical, as how can they be viewed in a MF viewer?

     Best Regards,

DON

On 8/13/2015 3:15 PM, JR stereoscope3d@gmail.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

While MF stereo slides are not as likely to be projected as 35mm, they can be. And projected, especially on a large screen, they can be very striking, since they are even larger than Imax. I used to mount 6 x 9 MF stereo slides in the Wess 2D plastic mounts (individually), and project them with a pair of 3-1/4 x 4 lantern slide projectors, with the polarizers mounted externally.

JR
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM, John Thurston juneau3d@thurstons.us [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

On 8/13/2015 1:40 PM, JR stereoscope3d@gmail.com
[MF3D-group] wrote:
> Cardboard mounts are likely the cheapest, but they do have the drawback
> that they can warp, especially in the larger sizes typical of MF.

Like wood, paper products also have "grain". I am very
ignorant of the details, but I've often wondered if by
die-cutting mounts "on the bias", they would become more
stable and warp resistant when folded over. There would be
much more waste in production, but I suspect they would be
more stable in use. In their final state, the grain of each
side would run at right angles to the other.

> Also,
> they must be cut very cleanly, otherwise little "fuzzies" around the edges
> can show.

No argument there, JR.

It's worth noting, however, that one batch of my plastic
3D-World mounts had a consistent plastic "hair" in one
aperture. Before mounting in them I needed to carefully trim
that hair and smooth the remaining nib. Quality of
manufacture is not governed solely by choice of materials.

...

> When choosing the material, also consider the type of adhesive that will
> work best with that material, be archival, and not "bleed", especially in a
> hot projector gate.

While nice in theory, I think it is very unlikely that MF3D
images, mounted side-by-side in 80x132 (or 80x140) mounts,
will ever be projected. I hope that anyone who might
undertake to produce a new run of cardboard mounts will not
consider this to be a "must have" characteristic of their
mounts.

--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-14 18:49:26
From: Don Lopp

Hello JR,

I have a thousand+, MF, cardboard mounted slides, and due to the care taken by Rocky Mt Memories, (Joel Alpers, and later, Paul Talbot), they did sell us a quality product. None have become warped, that I am aware of. The MF cardboard mounts made in Southern California are a different story, as they were a bit flimsy.

Best Regards,

DON

On 8/13/2015 2:40 PM, JR stereoscope3d@gmail.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

Cardboard mounts are likely the cheapest, but they do have the drawback that they can warp, especially in the larger sizes typical of MF. Also, they must be cut very cleanly, otherwise little "fuzzies" around the edges can show.

If you are planning on taping your film clips to the mounts, you only need a single piece for each one. But, if the tape comes loose (which it may in time), the tape will possibly catch in the viewer or projector.

Otherwise, you will need 3 layers for laminated slip-ins or for foldover types. Vinyl die cuts very cleanly, but is usually not as stiff as desired (by itself).

One thought would be a stiff cardboard center (with a larger opening) and very thin vinyl layers on the outside (the smallest opening layer defining the edges of the image).

Other plastics can also work, but they should be black to prevent spurious reflections.

When choosing the material, also consider the type of adhesive that will work best with that material, be archival, and not "bleed", especially in a hot projector gate.

JR
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Steven Lederman gongadin@rogers.com [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

MF3D Folio member Ray Dillard and I were considering taking an example of each size of cardboard MF3D mount to a die-cutting place and getting a quote for having some made.

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-15 07:52:45
From: coronet3d

The prices on used MF Projectors have fallen considerably. The Hasselblads still go for big bucks but the Rollei and Kindermann projectors prices are now in the hundreds. The problem is repair. The only MF slide projector repairman out there is Clive Christian in UK.

Steve

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-25 10:54:38
From: coronet3d

I believe that 3DStereo still have MF cardboard mounts. I don't know whether or not these are left over RMM mounts.

Steve

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-08-25 11:39:45
From: Timo Puhakka

It looks like the square cardboard mounts are listed for sale again and the portrait mounts also still available. The square mounts were listed as "not in stock" for some time.

Timo

On 25-Aug-15, at 12:54 PM, coronet3d@yahoo.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

I believe that 3DStereo still have MF cardboard mounts. I don't know whether or not these are left over RMM mounts.
Steve

Subject: Amusement park time exposure
Date: 2015-09-02 17:36:22
From: Timo Puhakka

Can anybody give me some wisdom on shooting moving rides etc. at an amusement park (the Canadian National Exhibition) please. I will be doing this tomorrow night. I have successfully done it before, but since I only do it once a year, I can't remember what worked and what didn't. I will be shooting Provia 100f in my TL120. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Timo

P.S. Sorry I changed the subject on this thread. Yahoo is not working for me right now and I don't have time to figure out what is wrong.

Subject: Re: Amusement park time exposure
Date: 2015-09-02 18:15:01
From: Bob Venezia

Hi Timo,

My “go-to” exposure has always been f16 / ISO 100 / 4 seconds. This is based on rides with incandescent lights. And some rides will be brighter than others.

I would strongly recommend you take along a digital camera and use it as a light meter. You can adjust the exposure based on what you get with the digital.

In recent years the carnivals in my area have been retrofitting their rides with LEDs. In some cases these rides are very bright and the exposure I mentioned won’t work. LEDs have a more computer-y look — they can make very interesting patterns. I still prefer the incandescents. Shoot them while you can, because they are an endangered species.

Not that you wouldn’t know to do this, but don’t bother with rides that have running lights that are stationary. That won’t create any patterns. I just looked on the website and I see a ride called the ring of fire. If it’s the same as the one we have here, a long exposure will just show all the lights on. Not what you want.

I would start off with the Zipper. It is a fantastic ride that makes an unexpected pattern. Shoot it with your digital camera to get the correct exposure. But in the case of the zipper, expose for at least as long as it takes to make one complete revolution, even if it’s more than four seconds.

You also have a Waveswinger there. Depending on how it’s lit, that can be a fantastic ride to shoot. Again, try first with digital.

I’ll do a little more research on the CNE. Can’t wait to see what you put in the folio!

cheers,

Bob Venezia

Seattle, Washington

On Sep 2, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Can anybody give me some wisdom on shooting moving rides etc. at an amusement park (the Canadian National Exhibition) please. I will be doing this tomorrow night. I have successfully done it before, but since I only do it once a year, I can't remember what worked and what didn't. I will be shooting Provia 100f in my TL120. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Timo

P.S. Sorry I changed the subject on this thread. Yahoo is not working for me right now and I don't have time to figure out what is wrong.

Subject: Re: Amusement park time exposure
Date: 2015-09-02 18:35:27
From: Bob Venezia

Okay, here’s a good place to start:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Canadian%20National%20Exhibition%20carnival&sort=date-taken-desc

Look for images here that you would like to emulate, and then go to the image and see what the exposures were. Some will be quite different from mine.

From what I see here, I would definitely want to capture the Mach3, the WaveSwinger, the Zipper, the Banzai, the big ferris wheel and maybe the ride that’s seen on the right in this image:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stvn_tal/9608890586/in/photolist-fD75pm-fD6Pis-fD6om7-fD66qY-fCP8hK-fCNYEp-fD6fxo-fCNhti-fCNq56-oFaPwz-qbnbEU-ptnp6N-pvpxEK-pgUxuG-p2rxKx-pgUziw-p2rttB-paTYEi-piWChF-p8NsVr-p94UYc-oTpmm1-paRFcd-oToN2U-oCxWEd-oahJeS-fL6aJR-fFUpDV-fGbSWj-fFU7Xa-fFU4DX-fEmHhS-fE58fD-fE58aH-fDMrWg-fE53YG-fDfvhU-fDMptV-fBhLXd-fzCALZ-fBiNgK-fAbcw6-fyVvuX-xbj6vy-fxcVRn-fw3jdq-fw1qnX-d9FCHK-dkn6Rt-d5n5AC

That looks suspiciously like the ride we have here that’s called El Nino and it is a crazy ride. I don’t know if it’s the same ride. If it is, it’s worth shooting. I took a lot of pictures of that ride that were just a jumbled mess. But one day I got a fantastic picture of El Nino and I had to figure out what the difference was. The ride turns on several axes so there’s no real pattern. There’s an arm that lifts up and spins around a turntable. You wait till the end when the arm stops moving around the turntable and shoot while the ride spins in place. Stop shooting as soon as the arm starts to descend.

IF it’s the same ride. :^)

Good luck!

Bob

On Sep 2, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Bob Venezia <bob@chairboy.com> wrote:

Hi Timo,

My “go-to” exposure has always been f16 / ISO 100 / 4 seconds. This is based on rides with incandescent lights. And some rides will be brighter than others.

I would strongly recommend you take along a digital camera and use it as a light meter. You can adjust the exposure based on what you get with the digital.

In recent years the carnivals in my area have been retrofitting their rides with LEDs. In some cases these rides are very bright and the exposure I mentioned won’t work. LEDs have a more computer-y look — they can make very interesting patterns. I still prefer the incandescents. Shoot them while you can, because they are an endangered species.

Not that you wouldn’t know to do this, but don’t bother with rides that have running lights that are stationary. That won’t create any patterns. I just looked on the website and I see a ride called the ring of fire. If it’s the same as the one we have here, a long exposure will just show all the lights on. Not what you want.

I would start off with the Zipper. It is a fantastic ride that makes an unexpected pattern. Shoot it with your digital camera to get the correct exposure. But in the case of the zipper, expose for at least as long as it takes to make one complete revolution, even if it’s more than four seconds.

You also have a Waveswinger there. Depending on how it’s lit, that can be a fantastic ride to shoot. Again, try first with digital.

I’ll do a little more research on the CNE. Can’t wait to see what you put in the folio!

cheers,
Bob Venezia
Seattle, Washington

On Sep 2, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Can anybody give me some wisdom on shooting moving rides etc. at an amusement park (the Canadian National Exhibition) please. I will be doing this tomorrow night. I have successfully done it before, but since I only do it once a year, I can't remember what worked and what didn't. I will be shooting Provia 100f in my TL120. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Timo

P.S. Sorry I changed the subject on this thread. Yahoo is not working for me right now and I don't have time to figure out what is wrong.

Subject: Re: Amusement park time exposure
Date: 2015-09-02 21:02:02
From: Timo Puhakka

Excellent! That's exactly the information I was hoping for. Your images are also my inspiration to keep trying this subject matter. My son Preston will be with me so we can lean heavily on his new Fujifilm X-E2, complete with film style camera controls, for test exposures.

Preston got a great shot of the Zipper one year with his Revere.

Thank you.

Timo

On 2-Sep-15, at 8:35 PM, Bob Venezia bob@chairboy.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

Okay, here’s a good place to start:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Canadian%20National%20Exhibition%20carnival&sort=date-taken-desc

Look for images here that you would like to emulate, and then go to the image and see what the exposures were. Some will be quite different from mine.

From what I see here, I would definitely want to capture the Mach3, the WaveSwinger, the Zipper, the Banzai, the big ferris wheel and maybe the ride that’s seen on the right in this image:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stvn_tal/9608890586/in/photolist-fD75pm-fD6Pis-fD6om7-fD66qY-fCP8hK-fCNYEp-fD6fxo-fCNhti-fCNq56-oFaPwz-qbnbEU-ptnp6N-pvpxEK-pgUxuG-p2rxKx-pgUziw-p2rttB-paTYEi-piWChF-p8NsVr-p94UYc-oTpmm1-paRFcd-oToN2U-oCxWEd-oahJeS-fL6aJR-fFUpDV-fGbSWj-fFU7Xa-fFU4DX-fEmHhS-fE58fD-fE58aH-fDMrWg-fE53YG-fDfvhU-fDMptV-fBhLXd-fzCALZ-fBiNgK-fAbcw6-fyVvuX-xbj6vy-fxcVRn-fw3jdq-fw1qnX-d9FCHK-dkn6Rt-d5n5AC

That looks suspiciously like the ride we have here that’s called El Nino and it is a crazy ride. I don’t know if it’s the same ride. If it is, it’s worth shooting. I took a lot of pictures of that ride that were just a jumbled mess. But one day I got a fantastic picture of El Nino and I had to figure out what the difference was. The ride turns on several axes so there’s no real pattern. There’s an arm that lifts up and spins around a turntable. You wait till the end when the arm stops moving around the turntable and shoot while the ride spins in place. Stop shooting as soon as the arm starts to descend.

IF it’s the same ride. :^)

Good luck!
Bob

On Sep 2, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Bob Venezia <bob@chairboy.com> wrote:

Hi Timo,

My “go-to” exposure has always been f16 / ISO 100 / 4 seconds. This is based on rides with incandescent lights. And some rides will be brighter than others.

I would strongly recommend you take along a digital camera and use it as a light meter. You can adjust the exposure based on what you get with the digital.

In recent years the carnivals in my area have been retrofitting their rides with LEDs. In some cases these rides are very bright and the exposure I mentioned won’t work. LEDs have a more computer-y look — they can make very interesting patterns. I still prefer the incandescents. Shoot them while you can, because they are an endangered species.

Not that you wouldn’t know to do this, but don’t bother with rides that have running lights that are stationary. That won’t create any patterns. I just looked on the website and I see a ride called the ring of fire. If it’s the same as the one we have here, a long exposure will just show all the lights on. Not what you want.

I would start off with the Zipper. It is a fantastic ride that makes an unexpected pattern. Shoot it with your digital camera to get the correct exposure. But in the case of the zipper, expose for at least as long as it takes to make one complete revolution, even if it’s more than four seconds.

You also have a Waveswinger there. Depending on how it’s lit, that can be a fantastic ride to shoot. Again, try first with digital.

I’ll do a little more research on the CNE. Can’t wait to see what you put in the folio!

cheers,
Bob Venezia
Seattle, Washington

On Sep 2, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Can anybody give me some wisdom on shooting moving rides etc. at an amusement park (the Canadian National Exhibition) please. I will be doing this tomorrow night. I have successfully done it before, but since I only do it once a year, I can't remember what worked and what didn't. I will be shooting Provia 100f in my TL120. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Timo

P.S. Sorry I changed the subject on this thread. Yahoo is not working for me right now and I don't have time to figure out what is wrong.

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-09-02 21:11:24
From: bob_karambelas

When lights are moving, the exposure is more or less controlled by the aperture. When you do long exposures, the exposure of stationary subjects can be adjusted by the shutter time. So you can balance the moving lights vs stationary subjects by adjusting shutter or aperture as appropriate.

A Fuji X camera makes an excellent light meter, with the unfortunate limitation that ISO 100 is JPG-only.

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-09-03 00:01:57
From: Bob Venezia

Excellent point, and that can work really well for fireworks. But with many carnival rides the path of the light will have it cross the same position more than once and this can overexpose the film or sensor.

Bob

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 2, 2015, at 8:11 PM, karambelas@gmail.com [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

When lights are moving, the exposure is more or less controlled by the aperture. When you do long exposures, the exposure of stationary subjects can be adjusted by the shutter time. So you can balance the moving lights vs stationary subjects by adjusting shutter or aperture as appropriate.

A Fuji X camera makes an excellent light meter, with the unfortunate limitation that ISO 100 is JPG-only.

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-09-03 06:13:55
From: bob_karambelas

Yes, that's why I qualified it as, "more or less." :)

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

Bob

Subject: Re: DIY mounts?
Date: 2015-09-03 08:08:47
From: bob_karambelas

Come to think of it... 2 repetitions of a light pattern = +1 stop, 4 reps = +2 stops, 8 reps = +3 stops, etc.

Subject: Re: Amusement park time exposure
Date: 2015-09-03 08:27:03
From: Bob Venezia

Hi Timo,

You can see an example of a ride with LEDs here:

http://stereo.thurstons.us/folio/?p=1791

Also, I spent a long time shooting a wider shot of the entire ride before I started shooting details. You can get in a little closer for some different perspectives too. This shot would have been a shorter exposure taken at sunset. Some of my favorite shots are at dusk when there’s still some color in the sky.

Good luck tonight!

Bob

On Sep 2, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Timo Puhakka <tpuhakka@ymail.com> wrote:

Excellent! That's exactly the information I was hoping for. Your images are also my inspiration to keep trying this subject matter. My son Preston will be with me so we can lean heavily on his new Fujifilm X-E2, complete with film style camera controls, for test exposures.

Preston got a great shot of the Zipper one year with his Revere.

Thank you.

Timo

On 2-Sep-15, at 8:35 PM, Bob Venezia bob@chairboy.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

Okay, here’s a good place to start:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Canadian%20National%20Exhibition%20carnival&sort=date-taken-desc

Look for images here that you would like to emulate, and then go to the image and see what the exposures were. Some will be quite different from mine.

From what I see here, I would definitely want to capture the Mach3, the WaveSwinger, the Zipper, the Banzai, the big ferris wheel and maybe the ride that’s seen on the right in this image:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stvn_tal/9608890586/in/photolist-fD75pm-fD6Pis-fD6om7-fD66qY-fCP8hK-fCNYEp-fD6fxo-fCNhti-fCNq56-oFaPwz-qbnbEU-ptnp6N-pvpxEK-pgUxuG-p2rxKx-pgUziw-p2rttB-paTYEi-piWChF-p8NsVr-p94UYc-oTpmm1-paRFcd-oToN2U-oCxWEd-oahJeS-fL6aJR-fFUpDV-fGbSWj-fFU7Xa-fFU4DX-fEmHhS-fE58fD-fE58aH-fDMrWg-fE53YG-fDfvhU-fDMptV-fBhLXd-fzCALZ-fBiNgK-fAbcw6-fyVvuX-xbj6vy-fxcVRn-fw3jdq-fw1qnX-d9FCHK-dkn6Rt-d5n5AC

That looks suspiciously like the ride we have here that’s called El Nino and it is a crazy ride. I don’t know if it’s the same ride. If it is, it’s worth shooting. I took a lot of pictures of that ride that were just a jumbled mess. But one day I got a fantastic picture of El Nino and I had to figure out what the difference was. The ride turns on several axes so there’s no real pattern. There’s an arm that lifts up and spins around a turntable. You wait till the end when the arm stops moving around the turntable and shoot while the ride spins in place. Stop shooting as soon as the arm starts to descend.

IF it’s the same ride. :^)

Good luck!
Bob

On Sep 2, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Bob Venezia <bob@chairboy.com> wrote:

Hi Timo,

My “go-to” exposure has always been f16 / ISO 100 / 4 seconds. This is based on rides with incandescent lights. And some rides will be brighter than others.

I would strongly recommend you take along a digital camera and use it as a light meter. You can adjust the exposure based on what you get with the digital.

In recent years the carnivals in my area have been retrofitting their rides with LEDs. In some cases these rides are very bright and the exposure I mentioned won’t work. LEDs have a more computer-y look — they can make very interesting patterns. I still prefer the incandescents. Shoot them while you can, because they are an endangered species.

Not that you wouldn’t know to do this, but don’t bother with rides that have running lights that are stationary. That won’t create any patterns. I just looked on the website and I see a ride called the ring of fire. If it’s the same as the one we have here, a long exposure will just show all the lights on. Not what you want.

I would start off with the Zipper. It is a fantastic ride that makes an unexpected pattern. Shoot it with your digital camera to get the correct exposure. But in the case of the zipper, expose for at least as long as it takes to make one complete revolution, even if it’s more than four seconds.

You also have a Waveswinger there. Depending on how it’s lit, that can be a fantastic ride to shoot. Again, try first with digital.

I’ll do a little more research on the CNE. Can’t wait to see what you put in the folio!

cheers,
Bob Venezia
Seattle, Washington

On Sep 2, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Can anybody give me some wisdom on shooting moving rides etc. at an amusement park (the Canadian National Exhibition) please. I will be doing this tomorrow night. I have successfully done it before, but since I only do it once a year, I can't remember what worked and what didn't. I will be shooting Provia 100f in my TL120. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Timo

P.S. Sorry I changed the subject on this thread. Yahoo is not working for me right now and I don't have time to figure out what is wrong.

Subject: Re: Amusement park time exposure
Date: 2015-09-03 17:48:56
From: Timo Puhakka

I try to shoot at dusk as well, for the same reason but It makes choosing your shooting angles ahead of time very important because you have a very limited time where the sky is at the optimum brightness.

Timo

On 3-Sep-15, at 10:26 AM, Bob Venezia wrote:

Hi Timo,

You can see an example of a ride with LEDs here:

http://stereo.thurstons.us/folio/?p=1791

Also, I spent a long time shooting a wider shot of the entire ride before I started shooting details. You can get in a little closer for some different perspectives too. This shot would have been a shorter exposure taken at sunset. Some of my favorite shots are at dusk when there’s still some color in the sky.

Good luck tonight!
Bob

On Sep 2, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Timo Puhakka <tpuhakka@ymail.com> wrote:

Excellent! That's exactly the information I was hoping for. Your images are also my inspiration to keep trying this subject matter. My son Preston will be with me so we can lean heavily on his new Fujifilm X-E2, complete with film style camera controls, for test exposures.

Preston got a great shot of the Zipper one year with his Revere.

Thank you.

Timo

On 2-Sep-15, at 8:35 PM, Bob Venezia bob@chairboy.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

Okay, here’s a good place to start:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Canadian%20National%20Exhibition%20carnival&sort=date-taken-desc

Look for images here that you would like to emulate, and then go to the image and see what the exposures were. Some will be quite different from mine.

From what I see here, I would definitely want to capture the Mach3, the WaveSwinger, the Zipper, the Banzai, the big ferris wheel and maybe the ride that’s seen on the right in this image:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stvn_tal/9608890586/in/photolist-fD75pm-fD6Pis-fD6om7-fD66qY-fCP8hK-fCNYEp-fD6fxo-fCNhti-fCNq56-oFaPwz-qbnbEU-ptnp6N-pvpxEK-pgUxuG-p2rxKx-pgUziw-p2rttB-paTYEi-piWChF-p8NsVr-p94UYc-oTpmm1-paRFcd-oToN2U-oCxWEd-oahJeS-fL6aJR-fFUpDV-fGbSWj-fFU7Xa-fFU4DX-fEmHhS-fE58fD-fE58aH-fDMrWg-fE53YG-fDfvhU-fDMptV-fBhLXd-fzCALZ-fBiNgK-fAbcw6-fyVvuX-xbj6vy-fxcVRn-fw3jdq-fw1qnX-d9FCHK-dkn6Rt-d5n5AC

That looks suspiciously like the ride we have here that’s called El Nino and it is a crazy ride. I don’t know if it’s the same ride. If it is, it’s worth shooting. I took a lot of pictures of that ride that were just a jumbled mess. But one day I got a fantastic picture of El Nino and I had to figure out what the difference was. The ride turns on several axes so there’s no real pattern. There’s an arm that lifts up and spins around a turntable. You wait till the end when the arm stops moving around the turntable and shoot while the ride spins in place. Stop shooting as soon as the arm starts to descend.

IF it’s the same ride. :^)

Good luck!
Bob

On Sep 2, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Bob Venezia <bob@chairboy.com> wrote:

Hi Timo,

My “go-to” exposure has always been f16 / ISO 100 / 4 seconds. This is based on rides with incandescent lights. And some rides will be brighter than others.

I would strongly recommend you take along a digital camera and use it as a light meter. You can adjust the exposure based on what you get with the digital.

In recent years the carnivals in my area have been retrofitting their rides with LEDs. In some cases these rides are very bright and the exposure I mentioned won’t work. LEDs have a more computer-y look — they can make very interesting patterns. I still prefer the incandescents. Shoot them while you can, because they are an endangered species.

Not that you wouldn’t know to do this, but don’t bother with rides that have running lights that are stationary. That won’t create any patterns. I just looked on the website and I see a ride called the ring of fire. If it’s the same as the one we have here, a long exposure will just show all the lights on. Not what you want.

I would start off with the Zipper. It is a fantastic ride that makes an unexpected pattern. Shoot it with your digital camera to get the correct exposure. But in the case of the zipper, expose for at least as long as it takes to make one complete revolution, even if it’s more than four seconds.

You also have a Waveswinger there. Depending on how it’s lit, that can be a fantastic ride to shoot. Again, try first with digital.

I’ll do a little more research on the CNE. Can’t wait to see what you put in the folio!

cheers,
Bob Venezia
Seattle, Washington

On Sep 2, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Can anybody give me some wisdom on shooting moving rides etc. at an amusement park (the Canadian National Exhibition) please. I will be doing this tomorrow night. I have successfully done it before, but since I only do it once a year, I can't remember what worked and what didn't. I will be shooting Provia 100f in my TL120. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Timo

P.S. Sorry I changed the subject on this thread. Yahoo is not working for me right now and I don't have time to figure out what is wrong.

Subject: Re: Amusement park time exposure
Date: 2015-09-05 08:52:37
From: Timo Puhakka

OK, I shot a couple of rolls last night. I have to say my confidence went up last night while I watched Preston set his X-E2 to 100 ISO, f-16 and shot perfect images with 4 second exposures in every direction he pointed his camera. Same thing for f-22 and 8 seconds. So I shot some of each, depending on the movement of the ride.

I have to make a digital rig with a pair of these X-E2s. I am blown away with the ease of use (like a film camera, the only button he needed to push was the shutter release) and the mind blowing quality of the images (albeit digital). That's going to cost a lot of money though, and off the topic of MF film, sorry.

Thanks for all the suggestions and advice. Time will tell how these shots came out.

Timo

On 3-Sep-15, at 12:29 PM, Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

I try to shoot at dusk as well, for the same reason but It makes choosing your shooting angles ahead of time very important because you have a very limited time where the sky is at the optimum brightness.

Timo

On 3-Sep-15, at 10:26 AM, Bob Venezia wrote:

Hi Timo,

You can see an example of a ride with LEDs here:

http://stereo.thurstons.us/folio/?p=1791

Also, I spent a long time shooting a wider shot of the entire ride before I started shooting details. You can get in a little closer for some different perspectives too. This shot would have been a shorter exposure taken at sunset. Some of my favorite shots are at dusk when there’s still some color in the sky.

Good luck tonight!
Bob

On Sep 2, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Timo Puhakka <tpuhakka@ymail.com> wrote:

Excellent! That's exactly the information I was hoping for. Your images are also my inspiration to keep trying this subject matter. My son Preston will be with me so we can lean heavily on his new Fujifilm X-E2, complete with film style camera controls, for test exposures.

Preston got a great shot of the Zipper one year with his Revere.

Thank you.

Timo

On 2-Sep-15, at 8:35 PM, Bob Venezia bob@chairboy.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

Okay, here’s a good place to start:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Canadian%20National%20Exhibition%20carnival&sort=date-taken-desc

Look for images here that you would like to emulate, and then go to the image and see what the exposures were. Some will be quite different from mine.

From what I see here, I would definitely want to capture the Mach3, the WaveSwinger, the Zipper, the Banzai, the big ferris wheel and maybe the ride that’s seen on the right in this image:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stvn_tal/9608890586/in/photolist-fD75pm-fD6Pis-fD6om7-fD66qY-fCP8hK-fCNYEp-fD6fxo-fCNhti-fCNq56-oFaPwz-qbnbEU-ptnp6N-pvpxEK-pgUxuG-p2rxKx-pgUziw-p2rttB-paTYEi-piWChF-p8NsVr-p94UYc-oTpmm1-paRFcd-oToN2U-oCxWEd-oahJeS-fL6aJR-fFUpDV-fGbSWj-fFU7Xa-fFU4DX-fEmHhS-fE58fD-fE58aH-fDMrWg-fE53YG-fDfvhU-fDMptV-fBhLXd-fzCALZ-fBiNgK-fAbcw6-fyVvuX-xbj6vy-fxcVRn-fw3jdq-fw1qnX-d9FCHK-dkn6Rt-d5n5AC

That looks suspiciously like the ride we have here that’s called El Nino and it is a crazy ride. I don’t know if it’s the same ride. If it is, it’s worth shooting. I took a lot of pictures of that ride that were just a jumbled mess. But one day I got a fantastic picture of El Nino and I had to figure out what the difference was. The ride turns on several axes so there’s no real pattern. There’s an arm that lifts up and spins around a turntable. You wait till the end when the arm stops moving around the turntable and shoot while the ride spins in place. Stop shooting as soon as the arm starts to descend.

IF it’s the same ride. :^)

Good luck!
Bob

On Sep 2, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Bob Venezia <bob@chairboy.com> wrote:

Hi Timo,

My “go-to” exposure has always been f16 / ISO 100 / 4 seconds. This is based on rides with incandescent lights. And some rides will be brighter than others.

I would strongly recommend you take along a digital camera and use it as a light meter. You can adjust the exposure based on what you get with the digital.

In recent years the carnivals in my area have been retrofitting their rides with LEDs. In some cases these rides are very bright and the exposure I mentioned won’t work. LEDs have a more computer-y look — they can make very interesting patterns. I still prefer the incandescents. Shoot them while you can, because they are an endangered species.

Not that you wouldn’t know to do this, but don’t bother with rides that have running lights that are stationary. That won’t create any patterns. I just looked on the website and I see a ride called the ring of fire. If it’s the same as the one we have here, a long exposure will just show all the lights on. Not what you want.

I would start off with the Zipper. It is a fantastic ride that makes an unexpected pattern. Shoot it with your digital camera to get the correct exposure. But in the case of the zipper, expose for at least as long as it takes to make one complete revolution, even if it’s more than four seconds.

You also have a Waveswinger there. Depending on how it’s lit, that can be a fantastic ride to shoot. Again, try first with digital.

I’ll do a little more research on the CNE. Can’t wait to see what you put in the folio!

cheers,
Bob Venezia
Seattle, Washington

On Sep 2, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Can anybody give me some wisdom on shooting moving rides etc. at an amusement park (the Canadian National Exhibition) please. I will be doing this tomorrow night. I have successfully done it before, but since I only do it once a year, I can't remember what worked and what didn't. I will be shooting Provia 100f in my TL120. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Timo

P.S. Sorry I changed the subject on this thread. Yahoo is not working for me right now and I don't have time to figure out what is wrong.

Subject: Re: Amusement park time exposure
Date: 2015-09-06 19:28:18
From: John Thurston

On 9/5/2015 6:53 AM, Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com
[MF3D-group] wrote:
- snip -

> I have to make a digital rig with a pair of these X-E2s. I am
> blown away with the ease of use (like a film camera, the only
> button he needed to push was the shutter release) and the
> mind blowing quality of the images (albeit digital). That's
> going to cost a lot of money though, and off the topic of MF
> film, sorry.

It isn't off-topic if you are thinking about doing some
digital -> film transfers so you may see your images in hand
viewers !

--
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

Subject: Re: Amusement park time exposure
Date: 2015-09-18 10:56:24
From: Jon Hoggatt

John, how would you recommend doing digital ->film transfers?
very curious, and would love to do that!
Jon Hoggatt

> On Sep 6, 2015, at 8:28 PM, John Thurston juneau3d@thurstons.us [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/5/2015 6:53 AM, Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com
> [MF3D-group] wrote:
> - snip -
>> I have to make a digital rig with a pair of these X-E2s. I am
>> blown away with the ease of use (like a film camera, the only
>> button he needed to push was the shutter release) and the
>> mind blowing quality of the images (albeit digital). That's
>> going to cost a lot of money though, and off the topic of MF
>> film, sorry.
>
> It isn't off-topic if you are thinking about doing some
> digital -> film transfers so you may see your images in hand
> viewers !
>
>
> --
> John Thurston
> Juneau, Alaska
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>

Subject: Digital to film transfers [was: Amusement park time exposure]
Date: 2015-09-18 11:24:35
From: John Thurston

On 9/18/2015 8:51 AM, Jon Hoggatt jonhoggatt@mac.com
[MF3D-group] wrote:

> John, how would you recommend doing digital ->film transfers?
> very curious, and would love to do that!

This is a very complicated subject, John. But I'll toss out
a couple of ideas.

I have tried using the film-recording services of gammatech
of Albuquerque, NM. The cost isn't too expensive, but the
results vary. I have tried both digital and film/scan
sources. The issues I have seen are low-contrast, banding,
and compressed color space. It's a place to start, but
expect to have mixed results.

At least one duplicate from this process has been in a
folio, but you may not have been participating at that time.
I've had duplicates from this process at an NSA convention,
but can't recall what year or who was there to see them.

Geoffry Waldo currently has images in Folio A which are
digital-source and transferred to film from his high-def
monitor. They have a different set of issues, but are very
impressive. You can find his notes here:
http://stereo.thurstons.us/folio/?cat=395&author=34
(Since you are a member of Folio-B, you can also read the
discussions which have taken place in the comments.)

It occurs to me that I should ask Geoffry if he would let me
include his set (as a guest) in the next rotation of
Folio-B. His work is important and I think more people
should get to see his efforts.

--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

Subject: Re: Digital to film transfers [was: Amusement park time exposure]
Date: 2015-09-18 12:15:43
From: Timo Puhakka

Shooting on MF film and shooting digital has taught me something about viewing stereo. I like a large, imersive image. The best way to do this is with a hand viewer. I have noticed that a "Viewvaster" type of viewer is very similar to an MF viewer and is the best way to view a digital image. This is because of the huge image. It is more than 4 times the apparent view on my 55" stereo TV. I am looking forward to the day I can afford a 4K phone screen for my digital images.

Timo

On Fri, 9/18/15, John Thurston juneau3d@thurstons.us [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Subject: [MF3D-group] Digital to film transfers [was: Amusement park time exposure]
To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, September 18, 2015, 7:24 PM

On 9/18/2015 8:51 AM, Jon
Hoggatt jonhoggatt@mac.com

[MF3D-group] wrote:
>
John, how would you recommend doing digital ->film
transfers?
> very curious, and would love
to do that!

This is a very
complicated subject, John. But I'll toss out
a couple of ideas.

I have tried using the film-recording services
of gammatech
of Albuquerque, NM. The cost
isn't too expensive, but the
results
vary. I have tried both digital and film/scan
sources. The issues I have seen are
low-contrast, banding,
and compressed color
space. It's a place to start, but
expect to have mixed results.

At least one duplicate from
this process has been in a
folio, but you
may not have been participating at that time.
I've had duplicates from this process at an
NSA convention,
but can't recall what
year or who was there to see them.

Geoffry Waldo currently has images in Folio A
which are
digital-source and transferred to
film from his high-def
monitor. They have a
different set of issues, but are very
impressive. You can find his notes here:
http://stereo.thurstons.us/folio/?cat=395&author=34
(Since you are a member of Folio-B, you can
also read the
discussions which have taken
place in the comments.)

It
occurs to me that I should ask Geoffry if he would let me

include his set (as a guest) in the next
rotation of
Folio-B. His work is important
and I think more people
should get to see
his efforts.

--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

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

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

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

Yahoo Groups Links

Traditional

(Yahoo! ID required)

MF3D-group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: Digital to film transfers [was: Amusement park time exposure]
Date: 2015-09-20 09:20:02
From: mamba3d

Like John, I have used "MF" film transfers by slides.com and gamma tech.com . The latter was better, and sufficient for non-critical viewing, but I was not excited enough to do a lot more than the 30 or so I had made.

I think imaging a UHDTV with a simple (probably used) C330 or similar (perhaps reflex) with sufficient calibration would work better than the above. You could make 2160x2160 pairs or if you were willing to use larger aspect ratios, all the way up to full UHD. With the price of UHDTV's declining rapidly (I saw a 40" for <$600 at Costco that looked good), it might be worth the effort. Is there any low contrast color slide (copying?) film available in 120?

Although more $ and maybe not for the same app, I am seriously considering a 4K Viewvaster when such might be available and after it is shown that the 4K phone can play full rez 4K video skip free.

John

hart3d.com

Subject: Re: Digital to film transfers [was: Amusement park time exposure]
Date: 2015-10-09 12:26:08
From: Joe Staus

Concerning exposing MF slide film to UHDTV: I have done a lot of experimenting in 35 mm format.

I have used a Cannon A1 camera with a 42" hi-def Samsung. It works, but colors are very hard to get right; also Black is not all that black. So I would not recommend buying a UHDTV just for that purpose.

I have since bought (several) Polaroid HR-6000 slide printers and pieced together one good one. Color is spot on and black it really black. Resolution is very good, but not quite up to direct film exposures.

I 'll have to see if there are MF slide printers available on E-Bay??

From: "hart3d@comcast.net [MF3D-group]"
To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 10:20 AM
Subject: [MF3D-group] Re: Digital to film transfers [was: Amusement park time exposure]

Although more $ and maybe not for the same app, I am seriously considering a 4K Viewvaster when such might be available and after it is shown that the 4K phone can play full rez 4K video skip free.

John

hart3d.com

Subject: Re: Digital to film transfers [was: Amusement park time exposure]
Date: 2015-10-09 12:58:20
From: Timo Puhakka

I will wait patiently for an 8K cell phone screen. I think it will come too. There will be more and more applications for the 4K screens than we have thought of so far. One example is this Toronto company which is helping many blind people see for the first time using, basically a VR headset on steroids. 8K is inevitable.

http://esighteyewear.com/

I already prefer my Viewvaster clone to my 3D TV for my digital images, even if it only uses a 1080p screen.

Timo

On 9-Oct-15, at 2:23 PM, Joe Staus jjstaus@yahoo.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

Concerning exposing MF slide film to UHDTV: I have done a lot of experimenting in 35 mm format.

       I have used a Cannon A1 camera with a 42" hi-def Samsung.   It works, but colors are very hard to get right; also Black is not all that black.   So I would not recommend buying a UHDTV just for that purpose.

     I have since bought (several) Polaroid HR-6000 slide printers and pieced together one good one. Color is spot on and black it really black.   Resolution is very good, but not quite up to direct film exposures.



    I 'll have to see if there are MF slide printers available on E-Bay??

From: "hart3d@comcast.net [MF3D-group]" <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com>
To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 10:20 AM
Subject: [MF3D-group] Re: Digital to film transfers [was: Amusement park time exposure]

Like John, I have used "MF" film transfers by slides.com and gamma tech.com . The latter was better, and sufficient for non-critical viewing, but I was not excited enough to do a lot more than the 30 or so I had made.

I think imaging a UHDTV with a simple (probably used) C330 or similar (perhaps reflex) with sufficient calibration would work better than the above. You could make 2160x2160 pairs or if you were willing to use larger aspect ratios, all the way up to full UHD. With the price of UHDTV's declining rapidly (I saw a 40" for <$600 at Costco that looked good), it might be worth the effort. Is there any low contrast color slide (copying?) film available in 120?

Although more $ and maybe not for the same app, I am seriously considering a 4K Viewvaster when such might be available and after it is shown that the 4K phone can play full rez 4K video skip free.

John
hart3d.com

Subject: MF3D Futures [was: Digital to film transfers ]
Date: 2015-10-09 13:29:57
From: John Thurston

On 10/9/2015 10:58 AM, Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com
[MF3D-group] wrote:
. . .

> I already prefer my Viewvaster clone to my 3D TV for my
> digital images, even if it only uses a 1080p screen.

Which makes me wonder about our definition of MF3D (the
subject of this group). In the folios I manage, I say I
don't care how the image was created as long as it is
presented as a transparency in 80x132 or 80x140 mounts.
Paint your image directly on plastic and mount it in
panoramic cardboard mount and it qualifies. If someone wants
to embed a couple of LCD panels in an 80x140 mount, that
will qualify too.

Digital imaging is only improving. The day _will_ come when
small screens inside virtual reality headsets are going to
offer a more immersive and detailed image than we can
achieve with any sized silver-based film.

What is the underlying meaning of "MF3D"? It isn't a
statement of technology (like Cyanotype). It's more a
marketing term (like IMAX).

The idea that the image must be produced with medium format
film is already bunk. Folks use 4x5 cameras to produce MF3D
images. Others use digital source and record it onto 120
film. Even the idea that images must be presented on medium
format film is bunk. The panoramic mounts accept 35mm film
and I've seem some great MF3D in these mounts.

For discussion:

"What does "MF3D" mean anymore, and how do you expect MF3D
to incorporate the digital imaging possibilities of the future?"

--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

Subject: Re: MF3D Futures [was: Digital to film transfers ]
Date: 2015-10-10 10:52:40
From: Geoffrey S. Waldo

I agree immersion is one essential quality of the MF3D experience.

And let us not forget that outside our circle, ignorance about film reigns supreme.
For example:
http://petapixel.com/2015/06/24/5-things-pure-film-photographers-wont-tell-you-or-why-i-shoot-hybrid/

Articles as in this link get my goat.

Film, properly handled, is going to convey a much better color depth. Between Bayer layer sensors found in most cameras, and limitations of current displays, (color depth and spatial color accuracy) the MD3D experience can really suffer. The effective color resolution of Bayer sensors is much lower than the stated pixel density of the sensor layer, because of the prismatic micro lens diffusers in the Bayer layer. Some discussion of Foveon sensors might be in order? And regarding displays, going to 8K alone won't help. It's not the number of pixels you have that makes the grade. It's how you use them!

In other words, the goal of the entertainment industry and the tech it generates may or may not result in a digital equal to all analog MF3D. What do we give up in acquiescing to whatever comes about? Can we help shape a niche or make sure the tech is physically capable of meeting the digital equivalent of analog MF3D?

...Following up John's suggestion for a topic of what constitutes MF3D...what would be the digital work flow from scene to eye required to reconstruct the best all analog film examples we've seen in our folios?

-g

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 1:29 PM, John Thurston juneau3d@thurstons.us [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/9/2015 10:58 AM, Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com
> [MF3D-group] wrote:
> . . .
>> I already prefer my Viewvaster clone to my 3D TV for my
>> digital images, even if it only uses a 1080p screen.
>
> Which makes me wonder about our definition of MF3D (the
> subject of this group). In the folios I manage, I say I
> don't care how the image was created as long as it is
> presented as a transparency in 80x132 or 80x140 mounts.
> Paint your image directly on plastic and mount it in
> panoramic cardboard mount and it qualifies. If someone wants
> to embed a couple of LCD panels in an 80x140 mount, that
> will qualify too.
>
> Digital imaging is only improving. The day _will_ come when
> small screens inside virtual reality headsets are going to
> offer a more immersive and detailed image than we can
> achieve with any sized silver-based film.
>
> What is the underlying meaning of "MF3D"? It isn't a
> statement of technology (like Cyanotype). It's more a
> marketing term (like IMAX).
>
> The idea that the image must be produced with medium format
> film is already bunk. Folks use 4x5 cameras to produce MF3D
> images. Others use digital source and record it onto 120
> film. Even the idea that images must be presented on medium
> format film is bunk. The panoramic mounts accept 35mm film
> and I've seem some great MF3D in these mounts.
>
> For discussion:
>
> "What does "MF3D" mean anymore, and how do you expect MF3D
> to incorporate the digital imaging possibilities of the future?"
>
>
> --
> John Thurston
> Juneau Alaska
> http://stereo.thurstons.us
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>

Subject: Re: MF3D Futures [was: Digital to film transfers ]
Date: 2015-10-10 11:19:07
From: JR

This discussion is taking a new and very interesting direction. The first question becomes, just what do you need in terms of resolution, dynamic range, color gamut, H & D curve, etc., to equal or exceed medium format film? And, the second question is, what will it cost?

Technically, the first question has already been answered. If anybody doubts that, look at the results obtainable with a Hasselblad digital sensor. The second question really is the one that deals with how soon it will come about as an everyday item. Really, just about anything in the marketplace was known and "proof-of-concepts" built long before it became a commonplace marketable item.

Economics are the real key. At some point, film and processing costs will increase and cross over with the costs of similar digital acquisition (how many rolls of film and processing over how much time will cost more than a digital sensor of similar overall quality). At that point, digital MF will become the more commonplace route.

stereoscope3d@gmail.com

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 9:52 AM, 'Geoffrey S. Waldo' gfpguy1@gmail.com [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I agree immersion is one essential quality of the MF3D experience.

And let us not forget that outside our circle, ignorance about film reigns supreme.
For example:
http://petapixel.com/2015/06/24/5-things-pure-film-photographers-wont-tell-you-or-why-i-shoot-hybrid/

Articles as in this link get my goat.

Film, properly handled, is going to convey a much better color depth. Between Bayer layer sensors found in most cameras, and limitations of current displays, (color depth and spatial color accuracy) the MD3D experience can really suffer. The effective color resolution of Bayer sensors is much lower than the stated pixel density of the sensor layer, because of the prismatic micro lens diffusers in the Bayer layer. Some discussion of Foveon sensors might be in order? And regarding displays, going to 8K alone won't help. It's not the number of pixels you have that makes the grade. It's how you use them!

In other words, the goal of the entertainment industry and the tech it generates may or may not result in a digital equal to all analog MF3D. What do we give up in acquiescing to whatever comes about? Can we help shape a niche or make sure the tech is physically capable of meeting the digital equivalent of analog MF3D?

...Following up John's suggestion for a topic of what constitutes MF3D...what would be the digital work flow from scene to eye required to reconstruct the best all analog film examples we've seen in our folios?

-g

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 1:29 PM, John Thurston juneau3d@thurstons.us [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/9/2015 10:58 AM, Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com
> [MF3D-group] wrote:
> . . .
>> I already prefer my Viewvaster clone to my 3D TV for my
>> digital images, even if it only uses a 1080p screen.
>
> Which makes me wonder about our definition of MF3D (the
> subject of this group). In the folios I manage, I say I
> don't care how the image was created as long as it is
> presented as a transparency in 80x132 or 80x140 mounts.
> Paint your image directly on plastic and mount it in
> panoramic cardboard mount and it qualifies. If someone wants
> to embed a couple of LCD panels in an 80x140 mount, that
> will qualify too.
>
> Digital imaging is only improving. The day _will_ come when
> small screens inside virtual reality headsets are going to
> offer a more immersive and detailed image than we can
> achieve with any sized silver-based film.
>
> What is the underlying meaning of "MF3D"? It isn't a
> statement of technology (like Cyanotype). It's more a
> marketing term (like IMAX).
>
> The idea that the image must be produced with medium format
> film is already bunk. Folks use 4x5 cameras to produce MF3D
> images. Others use digital source and record it onto 120
> film. Even the idea that images must be presented on medium
> format film is bunk. The panoramic mounts accept 35mm film
> and I've seem some great MF3D in these mounts.
>
> For discussion:
>
> "What does "MF3D" mean anymore, and how do you expect MF3D
> to incorporate the digital imaging possibilities of the future?"
>
>
> --
> John Thurston
> Juneau Alaska
> http://stereo.thurstons.us
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>

Subject: Re: MF3D Futures [was: Digital to film transfers ]
Date: 2015-10-10 11:46:54
From: Timo Puhakka

It is foolish to say that anything is better than a MF slide. However...

I think that in the context of shooting an event like a wedding, you have to compromise. I have shot weddings using both film and digital for the primary reason that I didn't want to find out that none of my film images came out because of a flaw with the film, processing, or the camera. I wound up giving the couple stereoviews from my twin rig, printed using my Selphy, and others that were shot on film with my TL120, processed and printed in my dark room. I mount them with nice back printing and supply a modern kit built Holmes viewer. For stereoviews anyhow, either method gives amazing results.

I save slides for my artistic shots.

Timo

On 10-Oct-15, at 12:52 PM, 'Geoffrey S. Waldo' gfpguy1@gmail.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

I agree immersion is one essential quality of the MF3D experience.

And let us not forget that outside our circle, ignorance about film reigns supreme.
For example:
http://petapixel.com/2015/06/24/5-things-pure-film-photographers-wont-tell-you-or-why-i-shoot-hybrid/

Articles as in this link get my goat.

Film, properly handled, is going to convey a much better color depth. Between Bayer layer sensors found in most cameras, and limitations of current displays, (color depth and spatial color accuracy) the MD3D experience can really suffer. The effective color resolution of Bayer sensors is much lower than the stated pixel density of the sensor layer, because of the prismatic micro lens diffusers in the Bayer layer. Some discussion of Foveon sensors might be in order? And regarding displays, going to 8K alone won't help. It's not the number of pixels you have that makes the grade. It's how you use them!

In other words, the goal of the entertainment industry and the tech it generates may or may not result in a digital equal to all analog MF3D. What do we give up in acquiescing to whatever comes about? Can we help shape a niche or make sure the tech is physically capable of meeting the digital equivalent of analog MF3D?

...Following up John's suggestion for a topic of what constitutes MF3D...what would be the digital work flow from scene to eye required to reconstruct the best all analog film examples we've seen in our folios?

-g

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 1:29 PM, John Thurston juneau3d@thurstons.us [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/9/2015 10:58 AM, Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com
> [MF3D-group] wrote:
> . . .
>> I already prefer my Viewvaster clone to my 3D TV for my
>> digital images, even if it only uses a 1080p screen.
>
> Which makes me wonder about our definition of MF3D (the
> subject of this group). In the folios I manage, I say I
> don't care how the image was created as long as it is
> presented as a transparency in 80x132 or 80x140 mounts.
> Paint your image directly on plastic and mount it in
> panoramic cardboard mount and it qualifies. If someone wants
> to embed a couple of LCD panels in an 80x140 mount, that
> will qualify too.
>
> Digital imaging is only improving. The day _will_ come when
> small screens inside virtual reality headsets are going to
> offer a more immersive and detailed image than we can
> achieve with any sized silver-based film.
>
> What is the underlying meaning of "MF3D"? It isn't a
> statement of technology (like Cyanotype). It's more a
> marketing term (like IMAX).
>
> The idea that the image must be produced with medium format
> film is already bunk. Folks use 4x5 cameras to produce MF3D
> images. Others use digital source and record it onto 120
> film. Even the idea that images must be presented on medium
> format film is bunk. The panoramic mounts accept 35mm film
> and I've seem some great MF3D in these mounts.
>
> For discussion:
>
> "What does "MF3D" mean anymore, and how do you expect MF3D
> to incorporate the digital imaging possibilities of the future?"
>
>
> --
> John Thurston
> Juneau Alaska
> http://stereo.thurstons.us
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>

Subject: Re: MF3D Futures [was: Digital to film transfers ]
Date: 2015-10-10 11:50:13
From: Timo Puhakka

Agreed. At some point, there will be a digital MF solution which will be able to replace film. It may come at a time where the choice of film will be gone anyhow.

Timo

On 10-Oct-15, at 1:18 PM, JR stereoscope3d@gmail.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

This discussion is taking a new and very interesting direction. The first question becomes, just what do you need in terms of resolution, dynamic range, color gamut, H & D curve, etc., to equal or exceed medium format film? And, the second question is, what will it cost?

Technically, the first question has already been answered. If anybody doubts that, look at the results obtainable with a Hasselblad digital sensor. The second question really is the one that deals with how soon it will come about as an everyday item. Really, just about anything in the marketplace was known and "proof-of-concepts" built long before it became a commonplace marketable item.

Economics are the real key. At some point, film and processing costs will increase and cross over with the costs of similar digital acquisition (how many rolls of film and processing over how much time will cost more than a digital sensor of similar overall quality). At that point, digital MF will become the more commonplace route.

JR
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 9:52 AM, 'Geoffrey S. Waldo' gfpguy1@gmail.com [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I agree immersion is one essential quality of the MF3D experience.

And let us not forget that outside our circle, ignorance about film reigns supreme.
For example:
http://petapixel.com/2015/06/24/5-things-pure-film-photographers-wont-tell-you-or-why-i-shoot-hybrid/

Articles as in this link get my goat.

Film, properly handled, is going to convey a much better color depth. Between Bayer layer sensors found in most cameras, and limitations of current displays, (color depth and spatial color accuracy) the MD3D experience can really suffer. The effective color resolution of Bayer sensors is much lower than the stated pixel density of the sensor layer, because of the prismatic micro lens diffusers in the Bayer layer. Some discussion of Foveon sensors might be in order? And regarding displays, going to 8K alone won't help. It's not the number of pixels you have that makes the grade. It's how you use them!

In other words, the goal of the entertainment industry and the tech it generates may or may not result in a digital equal to all analog MF3D. What do we give up in acquiescing to whatever comes about? Can we help shape a niche or make sure the tech is physically capable of meeting the digital equivalent of analog MF3D?

...Following up John's suggestion for a topic of what constitutes MF3D...what would be the digital work flow from scene to eye required to reconstruct the best all analog film examples we've seen in our folios?

-g

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 1:29 PM, John Thurston juneau3d@thurstons.us [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/9/2015 10:58 AM, Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com
> [MF3D-group] wrote:
> . . .
>> I already prefer my Viewvaster clone to my 3D TV for my
>> digital images, even if it only uses a 1080p screen.
>
> Which makes me wonder about our definition of MF3D (the
> subject of this group). In the folios I manage, I say I
> don't care how the image was created as long as it is
> presented as a transparency in 80x132 or 80x140 mounts.
> Paint your image directly on plastic and mount it in
> panoramic cardboard mount and it qualifies. If someone wants
> to embed a couple of LCD panels in an 80x140 mount, that
> will qualify too.
>
> Digital imaging is only improving. The day _will_ come when
> small screens inside virtual reality headsets are going to
> offer a more immersive and detailed image than we can
> achieve with any sized silver-based film.
>
> What is the underlying meaning of "MF3D"? It isn't a
> statement of technology (like Cyanotype). It's more a
> marketing term (like IMAX).
>
> The idea that the image must be produced with medium format
> film is already bunk. Folks use 4x5 cameras to produce MF3D
> images. Others use digital source and record it onto 120
> film. Even the idea that images must be presented on medium
> format film is bunk. The panoramic mounts accept 35mm film
> and I've seem some great MF3D in these mounts.
>
> For discussion:
>
> "What does "MF3D" mean anymore, and how do you expect MF3D
> to incorporate the digital imaging possibilities of the future?"
>
>
> --
> John Thurston
> Juneau Alaska
> http://stereo.thurstons.us
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>