Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Sheppards Dell Falls 3D (First of Three)

The GIF version of the first of thee animations I will be doing from the stereoscopic pictures I made at this shoot. I tried something different (and expensive) with these and it turned out to be a disappointment.

I should know better by now that trying to get a service that deviates significantly from the norm is going to be expensive, a disappointment, or in this case, both. For most people what cannot be done by rote cannot be done. If somebody else hasn't already established the procedure the creative leap required to go from concept to execution is too much to ask.

The first few rolls I shot with the stereoscopic camera I took to the machine-lab at the London Drugs on the corner. Someone there was able to deal with the unusual format well enough and I was able to get prints. There were a few mistakes, but nothing terrible. Either that person is gone or the machine was "upgraded". My last couple of attempts at getting inexpensive machine processing were rejected with the claim, "Our machine can't deal with this format." So I settled for simply having the negatives developed and scanning them myself. Unfortunately my scanner doesn't do the best job in the world with scanning negatives so the process was not satisfactory. This time around I decided to try having the stereo pairs custom printed so I could make decent scans from the prints. This was not worth while. Despite stipulating that having the colour and exposure match on the pairs was important this is not what I got in the end. The individual prints are done quite nicely but the colours vary far more than the machine-prints and, while it helps the individual exposures, the manual dodging makes it a huge pain to match histograms for the two halves. I had seven pairs developed. Only four of those will be workable as animations and since two of those four are virtually the same picture, it is only worth doing for three.

At $9.50 per custom print (and remember, seven stereoscopic pictures means fourteen prints) the three I can use work out to about $50 each. That is not worth it. Given how quickly $20/stereoscopic image adds up it seems my only viable option for getting prints and decent scans is a high quality film scanner.


( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
Jun. 10th, 2007 01:21 am (UTC)
Where did you get the pics developed this time around? I'm sure you know all about the expensive photo shops though, and have since exhausted all local resources. Boo that sucks.
Jun. 10th, 2007 02:19 am (UTC)
looks wicked cool though...........LOVE IT!
(Deleted comment)
Jun. 10th, 2007 07:08 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Next time I want physical prints I'll give them a try, but in the long run the scanner is going to be the way to go for me. I've done a little shopping around and there are some decent ones out there for under $1000.

I'm sure these would have been fine in a viewer, but when animated like I do the differences are glaring.

What are you using for your stereo pictures? Are you using a split-lens or a dedicated stereo camera? If it is a split lens it's an easier job since the exposures are side-by-side on the film (i.e. [1a][1b][2a][2b]). With a dedicated two-lens stereo camera the pictures are distributed either [1a][2a][1b][2b] (7P format) or [1a][2a][3a][1b][2b][3b] (5P format, which is what I have). Developing is more difficult, but the stereo-separation better because the two lenses better mimic the spacing of human eyes.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )


Michael / Atratus

Latest Month

November 2019


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel