Craig's Stereography
Last worked on: March 12th, 2019
You're at:
To enlarge the fonts, click: "Ctrl" and "+" ("Ctrl" and "0" for normal).
I no longer do stereography commercially.

Find>>  How to turn Fuji-W3 camera images into stereo prints: step-by-step - The W3 camera
- Our old 5 inch card viewers & Sets of Viewcards - Working with available cameras, Fuji's W3 and digital processors -
T-Plate Mounting Steps - Open Mounting Steps - Glossary - Addresses - Accessory Lenses for Nimslo - Bifold format -
Print Stereo Film - StereoSynthesis - Chicago - 6x13 - The RWVer and Standard Holmes/Bates format Stereoscopes -
My past Stereo Services - Freeviewing - Tutorials: trimming & mounting - sample view - Join NSA & SSA - Modern times -
3/12/2019 updates: * As will be the case for all of my 50+ pages, I'm boosting the font sizes throughout --for today's high resolution displays.
* My how-to pages for making print pair stereographs began with steps based on having a photographic darkroom, a trimming jig and a razor knife (back in the early 1980s) and ran through digital methods, including processing steps using the (free) Stereo Photo Maker application and a desktop printer --which assumes you've made an investment in buying one, plus a computer and a decent monitor. Since I'm surely out of date now on all of that --plus hand cameras of any kind are disappearing (plenty of good ones at your local Goodwill, however!), I'm only going to organize those old pages (cleaning up my links to them):
--then confine myself to what I know: how I make stereo views --using generic digital image pairs, simple graphics programs and cheap/good printers.

 * Wheatstone's stereoscope was a bulky affair with mirrors that sat on a table.

Stereoscopy is older than photography --by about 6 months, so inventor Sir Charles Wheatstone had to draw the first viewcards by hand(!) in 1838. It was Wheatstone who coined the term "stereoscope" --at his presentation to the Royal Society (of London --the oldest national scientific society in the world), and (amazingly) he was the first person to put two and two together in order to create a stereoscopic print pair. The Renaissance artists, such as Leonardo da Vinci, were very aware that binocular vision allows of depth perception, and there's indications for such awareness among Greek philosophers. (Corrections here thanks to reading Carol Jacobi and Dr. Brian May.)

* Next came Sir David Brewster's much smaller box stereoscope--

--suitable for passing around in a social circle.

Finally, in 1861, came a lightweight, open, skeletal stereoscope, as a rude version of--

--the ones we're now using.

This modern era 'scope was designed by Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes (Senior --father of Supreme Court Justice Holmes) and jointly developed with his craftsman friend: Joseph L. Bates. Holmes, who did much to popularize stereography, chose not to encumber his invention with patents (bless him).

 ~ Until about 1930, commercial photographers were usually also stereographers and millions of affordable Holmes-Bates 'scopes were manufactured. With the advent of inexpensive half-tone mechanical image printing, what was originally a limited, upper middle class "parlor stereoscope" experience, became a working class delight as well. Viewcards ended up being given away as grocery store premiums.

My Work (2018b):
Some attractions of print pairs are simply due to their being stereoscopic: a fascinating play of perspective, an ethereal feeling of having "presence" in another time and place.  There are subtleties as well: a graceful balance between a moment of life on the front of the card and its interpretation on the verso, a felt connection with the subject and the stereographer.
The view card (or "folder") in your hand is a mixed medium with power, reach, and an inherent poetry.  Print pair stereography is an art form to contend with, worthy of both lighthearted and serious practice.
With these strengths, print pair views do well as a humble witness to life.  Simply match appealing images with well edited thoughts on worthwhile subjects.  The medium itself carries my ordinary efforts with its engaging illusion and recognition of life.  Each card completion becomes a self-documented cultural artifact, registration for a visual delight or bit of history, and another portal to the Nature and human endeavors.
And as life rushes by, new images and mental abstractions of old ones quickly displace the few visual experiences we even try to focus on --like the press of so many curiosity seekers gathering to the scene of a happening.  But in the view card's stillness, we can find the personal time to clearly see and "take in" --perhaps a detail made visible only through stereography, the seeming reality of a scene otherwise lost to living eyes, --a face: still fresh and earnest in the warm light of a distant summer.


Modern Times Stereographica:

* The most interesting development has been the adaptation of Android and Apple smart phones' tall displays to (turned sidewise) a pair of stereoscopic/3D, "virtual reality" images --using head mounted devices like this one:

--which are appearing in electronics departments across the U.S. On the near horizon are VR versions like the Oculus system with "four times higher resolution than todayís 4K TVs".

The most outrageously low priced offering I've seen of late: an RC drone model helicopter with a camera and WiFi "virtual reality" capability (to your smart phone) for $28.88 --at a local department store. (Gawd: that has to leave something to be desired.)

Presumably: when you access a website with VR content, gyro/compass sensors and even co-ordinated GPS utilities in your smart phone --interact with the image pair and a downloaded application --for a just-turn-your-head, near 360 degree experience.

* To appreciate --at least the potential capabilities of an integrated VR experience, Google up the You Tube presentation of PBS-Nova's installment: "Invisible Cities".

This is something quite other --than the "moment in time" virtual reality of a traditional stereoscope, and it's becoming a complete system, now that affordably priced cameras are arriving on the scene --per:

The "JEDEye":

--and the 180 degree "LucidCam":

* By looking at the video presentations, it seems that the associated applications for these cameras (which download to your smart phone and might require some manual setup) --allow for some panning of the available wide image, by turning your head --thus: "immersive virtual reality". Caveat emptor: I expect that these systems will initially be very "patchy".

* (Read on for older, DIY 3D camera options.)

Popular and serious stereography got a tremendous boost with the introduction of Fujifilm's delightful model W1 and W3 cameras. This modern, durable, well thought out and affordable instrument, set on automatic, will reliably nail the exposure and color of nearly anything it's aimed at. Unfortunately, inventories of its production run have sold out and there (so far) doesn't appear to be a successor on the way. What new and old options we still have for taking stereographic photos follows. Here and here is what I've already posted about the W3. (Note that the W3 has user feature improvements but is otherwise very similar to the W1.)

What I see at (in no special order, but leaving out video only, mobile phone accessories, and "Holga" class cameras):

* New and used W3 and W1 cameras at about twice the old retail-new prices.

* A new (to me, anyway) 3D camera/camcorder entry from Sony, but I'm not sure it's being officially sold in the USA. From reading a poorly translated article, I see its emphasis is on automated flexibility between 2D and 3D modes, has a respectable pair of sensors (5 megapixel) and is capable of HD video. I've seen a new asking price of $395. This is the "Sony MobileHD Camera Bloggie 3D MHS-FS3".

* Something dubbed the model "DXG-018Y", which is clearly a digital "box camera" with fixed focus lenses. My Amazon page save came out badly, but I can make out that it has an LCD screen, color balance options, extremely short focal length lenses ("2mm") and tiny sensors ("1/9 inch"), which capture "0.3" megapixel images --which must be close to a standard definition video frame --which isn't enough resolution to print a standard sized stereoscopic pair (3x3 inches each frame). Other than that, the lone customer/reviewer is happy with his purchase (at $87.99). It's supposed to have been sold through since 2011, but it's new to me.

* The uninspiringly named "Takara Tomy 3d Shot Cam", described at Amazon with lame English. It's only $47.47 and it ships for free --straight from Japan. (In 2014, this same camera shipped free for $26!) For $47.47 you don't get an LCD display and the image pair have amazingly low resolution (about 150x200pixels, according to one reviewer). The lenses are (of course) fixed focus --no doubt with amazing depth of field.

* Panasonic's "Lumix 3D1-K". This is a real, 12 megapixel camera, being sold used at Amazon for $548.55, but I see a (once upon a time: 2014) new price of $180, straight from Japan --so shop around. Looking at it, this camera should be great for close-ups, interior and lawn party shots, but might leave a bit to be desired when shooting scenics, since the lenses look rather closely spaced (30mm apart). I read that everything about it is in Japanese, but there's a downloadable manual in English.

~ The JVC "Everio Gs-td1" camera/camcorder --at about $500 (and that's all I know at this point).

* The "Aiptek 3D-HD" camcorder/camera --has been around since 2010, when it sold for $200, and can now be had for $129 --shipped for free. With its 5 megapixel sensors, I can rate this "almost a real camera". The image pairs I've worked with were quite decent. See my early extensive reviews hear and here (and scroll up).

* Then there's Vivitar's "Vivicam 3D" entry: a 3D digital camera for $29.99 at Amazon --shipped free, but you'd best read the reviews. Be my guess: this was an abortive production run from some years ago, now being dumped, and the internal lithium battery has pretty much expired. (Again: read the buyer reviews.)

I've been wanting to make a statement about American stereoscopic movies and how they drove a short lived revival of amateur stereoscopy, but I lack depth in cinema --technically and culturally. Here instead (and I hope it stays posted) is a thoughtful blog by veteran cinematographer John Bailey, ASC., --who extends a deep bow to the research and publications authored by the NSA's own Ray Zone (who died in 2012).
My impression: Mr. Bailey is wary and a bit put-upon (justifiably) that the hustle of profits and fashion driven innovation --demands that he now confront (and probably integrate) stereoscopy into his repertoire of expertise. (As a life-long technician, I'm deeply sympathetic.) This technically and professionally competent man is just enough of a "3D" outsider to have a valuable point of view --about his neck of the stereoscopic woods.
"Working in stereo movies in a responsible way is not simply a point and shoot affair, even under the simplest of conditions. --- There is a dictate that became a mantra doled out by the workshop instructors and taken to heart by we eager students: 3-D in movies is NOT REAL. Like an Escher drawing, it is an illusion. Our actual eyes simply don't function the way 3-D movie imagery does. In constructing the 3-D movie frame we professional cinematographers have to evaluate carefully all the visual elements contained within the shot, as well as their cumulative effect as the sequence develops, shot by shot."
* Throughout this opinion piece, Mr. Bailey (and, presumably, the instructor of a workshop in filming stereo movies that he [then] recently attended) accepts it that the camera/s lenses will have both interaxial (camera base) and convergence adjustment --or: "toe-in". While this is a convenient way to deal with the stereo window, I hope that better awareness and equipment (or creative control during the editing stage) will one day make this a practice of the past.  In the indeterminate meanwhile, we'll have to rely on the cinematographer's good sense that "something is wrong" --and he/she then backs off on the convergence --in favor of reduced interaxial.
I also commend the comments section to your attention, such as: "Among Avatarís innumerable failures, its stubborn refusal to develop any kind of grammar^ (or even acknowledging that a new one was required) was the one that angered me the most" (by Benoît Perrier). Ray Zone also adds some thoughts about the inevitability of 3D cinema. (^Standards of practice --and per my old beefs with the NSA and SSA.)
I've now reconsidered my first impressions of Avatar --that it was the most competently executed Hollywood stereoscopic motion picture I've seen, plus culturally/thematically friendly to me in that it identified with the (idealized) victims of our sick, imperial, corporate run nation. So I still give it "two thumbs up", --but yes: even the time I first saw this movie, I would have preferred it (personally) if the stereoscopy (interaxial/"deviation" content) had backed off a bit, and if the cuts were longer. (Gosh: I felt like such an old man --gripping the arm rests of my seat, but I realized that a younger audience was enjoying the ride.)
Avatar, good as it was, could have been more subtly and aesthetically executed --but probably to the detriment of the boost it gave our stereoscopic industries in general. Hopefully, venture capital and patronage will support an ever maturing "grammar" of stereoscopic cinematography.


(use red-blue 3D glasses for the kitty)

* On 8/6/2006 I discovered a coinage and trademark use of "StereoSynthesis" that was previous to my own first use in 1993. David M. Geshwind patented a process he called "Stereosynthesis" for converting 2D cine footage into 3D in 1990. I suspect that it wasn't the high resolution "in the round" photo-realistic rendering I was doing in 1993, but it was very advanced, fast, and digitally automated. By contrast, I painstakingly plot out my sometimes pixel level manipulations by hand and then execute my plan with a general purpose graphics program. I never applied for any patents or trademark protection, but I did quite a bit of work through my agent, James Curtin ("The Added Dimension"), during the 1990s.
It's fun to take a regular (non-stereoscopic) photo and render it into a 3D image. Eventually, our "Tutorials" section will supply the information you'll need to do this StereoSynthesis on your own --skills that a number of stereoscopists have now mastered, but (I gather) using different methods.

For commercial services in rendering 2D to 3D (especially as lenticular displays), contact Peter Sinclair at:


"High resolution" in the early 90s was different from what's considered even adequate resolution today.  Back when 150 line screen on a 2540 dpi commercial press was considered real quality, we used a shop with a row of million dollar Heidleburg presses in Ohio to do our process color printing.  (The finished images were to be viewed with 4 to 7 inch focal length lenses.)  When I proofed the work, using a troublesome dye sublimation printer, I thought I could see a gain when our images were supported at 300 dpi, so I sent in the image files that way (by FedEx on expensive, delicate "SyQuest" cartridges).  They initially complained at the other end about "needlessly large" image files, which ranged up to 7 MB each (equivalent to 2.5 megapixels) for our small format print pairs.
The largest image I could open without crashing my computer was about 20 MB --which was also the largest uncompressed image from a Kodak Photo-CD scan file.  Today, of course, 8 megapixel ( 24 MB file size, uncompressed) consumer cameras are commonplace and the local shop will ask you for that much image to make a best quality 16" wide poster.

Anaglyphy (to be viewed with red-blue or red-cyan glasses) works quite well with computer monitors. Here's an anaglyphic stereograph that you might enjoy.

Chicago - 1968
(use red-blue 3D glasses / click for a 100Kb version)

*Our old products, the Model #5h viewer (Brewster type for 5 inch cards) and sets of viewcards to fit them are no longer available.. We've given many views and viewers away --which seems a lot simpler, and just as "profitable" :-)))
Monolithic Processing Might come back, but it will have to be offered by others --sorry.
I have two major reasons:

* I'd like to focus on pursuing our own stereography.

* I found it too difficult to contend with scratches and dirt on film emulsions. Possibly, film scanners with "ICE" scratch removal technology works for stereo pairs --and someone with such a device will step up to bat and make print pairs (like this one) --from our stereo formatted 35mm film.
                                               (view by Nancy Lee)
Dear Stereographer: It's fairly simple to make your own views --now that we have such excellent color printers, both as desk tops and as digital commercial rigs in photo departments. My suggestions:

1) Write to me (with your SASE) for a free tutorial CD on how to create your own print pair view cards, and consider joining the Stereoscopic Society of America.

2) Have your digital finished work printed with a department store Fuji or Kodak machine. Their outputs are as good as I ever achieved in the color darkrooms I've built.

Office and home desktop printers tend to show some "image structure" in the highlights --but are "good enough" for most of our printing needs, and certainly for "free-view" pairs. However, many photo quality desk top printers have become affordably available (but watch the per print operating costs).  We now use a Brother brand "all in one" MFC-J985DW inkjet which promises penny/page black and white, nickel a page color --and the image quality is great (using premium papers). (This is break from my 27 year string of excellent HP printers, due to high ink cartridge costs --and a lot of sassy screen messages when I refilled cartridges.)

European "6x13 format" and American "free-view" pairs on (about) 5 inch wide cards are something like 71% the image size of traditional 7 inch wide Holmes/Bates view cards. If you're going to use a 4x6 output device (which is now about the only size available) you might wish to print the entire ("monolithic") card that way, and have plenty of room to spare.


*** Click for our template patterns and trim/mount steps. You'll need them for trimming/gluing print pairs to open cards (and/or write for the latest tutorial on CD with your SASE.)

* If you're still using film, please keep your film strips in clean sleeves.

The average shooter will be better off when photography is all digital (check out the Fuji W-1 3D camera): no dirt or scratches to permanently ruin your images. Peg and I still mainly shoot digital now.


Digital Comments: I suggest that you consider archiving non-Kodachrome (E-14) color film to digital files on DVDs (more archival than compact disks ("CDs"), provided you can find and afford a quality scanning service (perhaps at Evergreen Film Service in Eugene). E-6 transparency and standard color negative films (including Illford's XP2) have better life expectancies than in the past, but 20 years is still likely to show some deterioration.

Many are unaware that most magnetic media, digital and analog, is similarly rated (though I think it's more durable than commonly thought). The "good news" previously posted here --about CDs (like Kodachrome) being rated to last 90 years --has become "inoperative". Now folks talk about 15 to 30 years for good brands.   :-(((   However: if you stay on your toes, you'll be able to "migrate" your image files to whatever comes next. --Same goes for your digital camera images: archive your files to DVDs (for now). (I don't know the archiviality of Blu-Ray, but that technology may have arrived a bit too late on the scene.)

Accessories for Nimslo cameras.
At this point my inventories of prepared lenses are depleted. For more information and for advice on making your own accessories *-click!-*


You might find the folding "6x13" format viewers we and The Added Dimension use to sell at American Paper Optics or at:

I no longer offer the "CedarEdge" wooden stereoscope), nor the affordable stereoscopes/viewers for 5 inch wide card print pairs.

"6x13" loosely refers to a pair of images that are each about 2-1/4" wide on a card that's about 5" wide and often about 2.5" high. Alluded to is the 6x13 centimeters of old European medium plate cameras and more recent paired "medium format" frames from 6x6 and 6x7 format cameras --which frames are actually about 2-1/8" square. This range of format is also called "free view" because it's easy to "spread" one's eyes and fuse the pairs without benefit of an optical viewing device.

Obviously, affordable printing methods are challenged to turn out the high resolution needed for stereoscopes, and this smaller format is a bit more demanding. However, the results can be very pleasing, as were the dozens of commercially printed projects I've been involved with. Most of all, the gain in affordability, simplicity, and mailability simply requires that we make this format work. See our Sets page for this alternative.

If exchanging stereoscopic imaging samples and ideas sounds interesting to you (either digitally or with traditional photographic pairs), check into the NSA ( and SSA ( Costs can be kept low in the photographic circuits by (say) simply "shifting" a conventional camera to make stereo pairs (an SASE brings you instructions). (There are modest NSA/SSA dues.)

And don't miss the International Stereoscopic Union's web site at:

*Discover MORE products, services, books, and other stereographica!
3D TV! (
Visit the "3D Web" (Bob Mannle's site + others)

Visit the Quellen Company {you can get Q-VUs through},

--which makes and supplies "Q-VU" mounts. They do for print pairs what 35mm slide mounts do for transparencies. You order suitable print pairs from a stereo format friendly processor, template trim them (ask me for free instructions) and drop them in. Quellen also has mounts and affordable plastic viewers for medium format ("6x13") pairs. (Quentin's site provides some interesting medium format links.)

General Addresses

ADDRESSES FOR STEREOGRAPHERS (out of date --sorry. Enclose a stamped self-addressed business size envelope when requesting information.)

* American Paper Optics, for all items formerly sold by The The Added Dimension and many services in coöperation with "StereoType". Also see

* Berezin Stereo Photography Products / 21686 Abedul, Mission Viejo, CA 92691. Berezin is our #1 supplier --of most everything. Visit his web site at* to see his new products --including actual digital still and video 3D cameras! (Check the reviews, however. These cameras have limitations.) (949-215-1554, fax: 581-3982)

* 3D from Dalia / PO Box 492 / Corte Madera, CA -94976. Dalia Miller's catalogue is actually a proprietary magazine that you subscribe to --filled with a wide range of quality antique and rehabilitated equipment and media. (415-924-3356; fax: 6162)

* Studio 3-D (Ron Labbe) / 30 Glendale Street / Maynard, MA 01754. Format conversions, mounting, processing, and projection services. -

*Taylor Merchant Corporation / 5 Grayley Place / Huntington Stn. NY 11746212. Nice folding viewers for 5 inch card format views, lenses for that and standard format stereoscopes. See:

* Cygnus Graphics / PO Box 32461 / Phoenix, AZ 85064-2461. My what great stuff!

For the exquisite wooden "SaturnScope" contact:

*Corner Rounder: Lassco Products, Inc. / 485 Hague Street / Rochester, New York 14606 (716-235-1991).

Regular Stereo Processing:

To the best of my knowledge, we only have one choice for getting prints from negative film frames, but it's a good choice.  I'm currently having a discussion with Panda Labs, which has been doing custom stereo printing for many years, to see if they want to offer "standard deals" for our 35mm 5p and 4p formats. Please stand by for more information: specifics and prices.

* Panda Labs
533 Warren Av. N
Seattle 98103                        phone: 206-285-7091

This is a widely respected lab which likes challenges and will print to/from custom formats and special emulsions.

** If this is all too much trouble and expense, consider buying a Fuji "W-1" or the Aiptek stereo camera systems, going the synched cameras route (film or digital), or the Loreo 1-2-3 from Berezin  --for which I've made some comments and suggestions per: digiprint/

* Four Star Photo of Georgia
Main Post Mini Mall Exchange
Fort Benning, GA 31905  As of 8-12-2010, their web site is down, the main phone number is disconnected, the other one just rings, and the e-mail address I have for owner Richard Maeher bounced.

* The Camera Shop of Klamath Falls bought into a new photo processing system 5 years ago, but found it too inflexible to allow of handling our 5p and 4p stereo formats.

* Grand Photo of St. Paul Minnesota has a Better Business Bureau listing indicating that it's no longer owned by Mark and Janet McCoy --even though the Grand Photo on-line presence still suggests that, given encouragement, they might be willing to once again try their hand at printing stereo pairs.

*, has some very interesting services to offer, but the web site doesn't appear to have been updated since Windows-95 days, their 877 number answers to another business name, and I got an anonymous "leave message" using their regular number. I'm waiting for any return on my e-mail ping.

This fellow offered the same kind of digital service I tried to offer --plus he added interesting twists in being able to return a variety of digital formats.

Other Services and Suppliers:

Lenticular: * Many who call and write are seeking lenticular processing for one of the many 2, 3, 4, and 5 lensed cameras that have been sold. Contact:

* (I worked with the owner-operator Peter Sinclair, nice guy  :-)

* Q-Folder Mounts:Q-VU: is a print pair mount which does for prints what slide mounts do for transparencies. They're available in a variety of colors and styles. Q-VU / 817 E. 8th Street / Holtville, CA 92250 at:, and from suppliers like Berezin.


* Doing business as the "Red Wing View Company", I designed and made the original "split tongue" Red Wing Viewers. Later on I supplied just the brass parts for Luther Askeland's beautiful version. These two are all that remain and aren't for sale.

"His principal income, it turned out, was from a line of lovingly constructed replicas of the 19th-century stereoscopes that provided entertainment in Victorian parlors along with the spread of photography during the 1850s and 1860s. Invented in 1849, the stereoscope is a simple mechanical device that allows two pictures taken from a slightly different angle to be seen separately by each eye. Thus it produces the illusion of three-dimensional depth, demonstrating how perception is shaped by the angle of vision and the habits of the neural system. Luther sold them to collectors throughout the country."  --Rhoda R. Gilman: "Luther Askeland and the Wordless Way"

* A Photographer's Place (use to be at: PO Box 274 / Prince Street Station / New York, NY 10012-0005), sadly, went out of business in 2001 --after a long run as a treasured resource. See Bill Pierce's goodbye. Among  Harvey Zucker's expansive offerings of books was a huge stock of reproduction ("litho") viewcards (I bought a chunk of it) and the stereoscope I once resold as "The CedarEdge":

* These 'scopes are still made by Don Claymore ("The Claymore Company", wholesale only) out of finely finished and varnished hard and semi-hardwoods like walnut and mahogany, which he saws and mills. He sells all that he and his family can turn out, turning down huge orders (Toyo wanted 10,000) so that he can remain hands-on. We're no longer offering these Standard Holmes-Bates format stereoscopes, but they're widely available in gift shops and museums --for $100 to $150 retail, which includes a dozen litho reproduction antique views. Here's a recent story about Don, wife Shirley and family in the Delta County Independent:

This stereoscope is/was available from Berezin Stereo Photography Products (see:

At one point I had some input as to its geometry and optics. The design turned out well. The CedarEdge comes with a good leather hood, similar in eyewear accommodation and functionality to that used on the old Red Wing Viewers. The Cedar Edges' large plastic lenses were good  in 10 out of the 10 last scopes which came through here.

* Alan Lewis makes/made the magnificent "MagniView Orthostereoscopic stereoscope": a noseless, shorter focus tech 'scope in an otherwise beautifully traditional wooden format. It has both inter-ocular (optical centers distance) and vertical centerline adjustments. Short of a Keystone-Mast ophthamological table scope, this is the best scope you can buy (adjusted correctly). The stronger lenses work well, especially with medium format transparency pairs, because they're achromats (color corrected, to eliminate high contrast fringing).


Stereoscope Design Considerations:

* The intended viewer geometry for classic (Holmes-Bates-Keystone-Society) format 7 inch cards (by those who gave it any thought at all), used 200mm (5 diopter), non-achromatic, plano-convex lenses with optical centers fixed at 85mm to 89mm of separation. That geometry worked great.  It still does.

That optical centers dimension has very little to do with the distance between your eyes, by the way. It's consequence is that your eyes will usually "toe in" on an average view with its 76mm between the frames (the "stereo window") and perhaps up to 79mm between details in the images. That toe-in anticipates the tendency of people to "look near" when they know a viewcard is less than a foot away. It also anticipates that the average person will pull an interesting viewcard in as close as he/she can comfortably focus, which proportionately reduces the effective optical centers separation down toward the actual inter-pupilary distance of your eyes --which averages 65mm.

Normal reading distance is about 14 inches (356mm) --which is as close as a person (on average) cares to comfortably hold a printed page. Eye-wise, that's about the same as pulling the stage-and-viewcard in to a distance of only 5 inches --instead of the full 8" focal length of a standard stereoscope's lenses. On average, the effective optical centers of a standard stereoscope will be reduced (say) 87mm to 75mm, which also happens to be the comfort limit, at which point your eyes' lines of sight start having to everywhere diverge in order to fuse the two frames of an old print pair stereograph.

* I don't believe that this stereo-optical geometry was worked out by some founding genius of the stereoscopic industry. It's rather the happy, serendipitous result of using the shortest practical focal length lenses (out of deference to photographic resolution and chromatic aberration), splitting a single lens into halves (and then squaring the halves) to make a matched pair for a stereoscope, turning the thick sides out, and placing them far enough apart such that most everyone's lines of site are unimpeded as their eyes orbit across the visually fused pair of a stereograph.

* If anything, modern (darkroom) photographic resolution is a tad worse than were old contact printed, black and white viewcards of the past. I've measured 10 line pairs per millimeter (once almost 14) in good antique views, whereas my best color work (with a Rodenstock lens at its f/5.6 sweet spot in a Beseller dichroic color head enlarger) ran a film-to-print throughput of 6 to 8 line pairs per mm (up to 400 "DPI"), which is twice the assumed resolution of a good larger format (8x10 inch, say) photographic print. (This all works backward to assumptions about a camera's smallest "circle of confusion" and a practical "depth-of-field" to work with.) I therefore suggest that one stay with 8 inch (200mm, 5 diopter) strength lenses in a standard stereoscope, and no less than 6 inch lenses in a stereoscope or viewer meant for a 5 inch wide card (with a European/Japanese type medium format print pair).

* Commercial, mass-produced antique viewcards were die cut to fixed dimensions, therefore corresponding left-right points in the distance ("homologous points at infinity") had to float apart when close-up subject matter was included. Separation distances in such views could reach well over 80mm, so the optical centers spacing of a standard stereoscope is often needed --and with the card near full focal length.


Other Services:

* One of my former Stereosynthesis competitors (in The Netherlands):

Publications & groups

* Join the National Stereoscopic Assn. and read Stereo World, a first class magazine. Visit the new NSA web site. Learn all about stereoscopy and those doing it. Contact the NSA at PO Box 14801, Columbus, OH 43214

* The Stereoscopic Society, a correspondence association devoted to the making and sharing of modern stereo images, is associated with the NSA (which you must first join).

The SSA has been circulating each other's print pair views in the same format (along with other newer formats and media) for over 100 years.  A stereograph made in the 19th Century will fit into and view nicely in a stereoscope made just a few years ago. Often we discuss and debate the same subjects and techniques which concerned those early members of what use to be called the SSAB: "Stereoscopic Society, American Branch".  Here's an old circuit entry of mine.

--and the verso, which carries the maker's comments and any view data.

Circuit member comments (2 of 12), which are written on the "sleeve"/envelope which holds each view card:

> "Quite pleasant to view. Your remarks make me think you never owned a good dog!!  --Sadness, Jaded." {Bill W.};

> "Wow! --what stereo does for this! I love it. (Could be a moon of Jupiter.) I appreciate the sadness observation --one has to ponder. Pleasure is for the moment (like viewing this stereo view) --and the long range point, for us, seems to be the pointlessness. I see no contradiction between Craig's comments and owning a good dog (or cat!). They can and do co-exist. I do like this picture --what a philosophy initiator." {Bill P.}

* You might also join the International Stereoscopic Union and read their journal: Stereoscopy.

* And then there's the mother of us all: Britain's grand old Stereoscopic Society at: