Thursday, April 22, 2010

philosophical question. kind of. i guess.

There is a kind of fun, niche photography that I'd like to get into. Yes, another one. No, selective focus/shaped bokeh, fisheye and plastic lens (which I don't have yet but I'M GOING TO GET ONE) aren't enough. There's another niche that is seriously awesome.

I'm talking about 3-D!!!!!!

There are two options for ways to do it. (I'm not even considering mounting two different cameras on a spacing rod or whatever they call it. I want to take 3-D pics of birthday parties and the Great Wall of China, not a vase of flowers in a controlled studio setting.)
  1. Cheap 35mm 4-lens lenticular camera. (We're talking like $20.) Send film to for processing and printing. Prints cost a few dollars each but do not require a viewer or glasses. You are paying for every print on the roll without knowing how the shot came out, but the results are REALLY cool.
  2. Stereoscopic (2-lens) lens for my DSLR. $163 including shipping, and comes with a viewer. The 3-D effect is also viewable by crossing your eyes (I figured out how to do it in like 5 minutes) and you can also use digital stereoscopic images to make your own Viewmaster reels. Which is also REALLY cool. You can get lenticular (no glasses required) prints made from digital stereoscopic images, but it is (considerably) more expensive than getting it done from film. On the other hand, you'd only be paying for the ones you really want. On yet another hand, the upfront cost for this method is a lot higher than a $20 camera and some film. But on a fourth hand (what kind of creature is this, anyway?) you can shoot as many pictures as you want until you get the focus and the exposure and the composition just right.
I should also mention that I'd like to get one or the other before we go to China (probably this summer) and there's a lot of other stuff we have to get for that trip. A lot.

So, which option would you choose?

No comments: