Chuck,

At 09:31 PM 9/9/2008, you wrote:

>So are you saying that 1mm more lens to film spacing will
>focus the viewer to infinity focus when it is focused all
>the way out?

I feel certain that MY eyes only need about another 1 mm to be
comfortable, but I can't answer your question without taking some
measurements, so here goes....

I just took some careful measurements with my inexpensive, plastic calipers.

Removing the lenses, I did the trick where you "project" a distant
light source onto a piece of paper - I get a focal length of 75mm for
these lenses (measuring to the middle of the doublet, which is 11mm
thick). I then did the same thing with lenses from the older STL
viewer and got the same measurements. I'm more certain than before
that this new viewer's lenses are identical to the STL viewer's lenses.

Then, as best I could, I measured the distance from the film plane of
the new viewer to the middle of the doublets when mounted in the
barrel, with the focus run all the way out. Guess what? I got
exactly 75mm. I get the same measurement with the older fixed-focus
STL viewer.

So.... where 3DWorld made a poor choice with their fixed-focus design
to set it precisely at Infinity (75mm), instead of something closer
to the film plane that would serve a larger audience, they've made a
similar poor choice in limiting the travel of their adjustable-focus
viewer to that same distance - Infinity (75mm).

Answering your question, then, I can now say the new viewer is
actually capable of focusing at Infinity, but that's the end of the
road - 75mm - making this viewer unusable for many people, just as
the STL viewer was. Arrrgh! (History repeats itself - nothing learned...)

Regarding the possible use of spacer rings:

Having unscrewed the bezel of one of the viewer lenses, then putting
it back but applying only ONE FULL TURN on the the threads, I can say
with high confidence that there is room for a 2.5mm spacer ring
behind the glass and the lenses would still be secure. If you're
willing to go with only HALF A TURN on the threads, you could insert
a 3.0mm spacer ring beneath each lens, but I wouldn't recommend doing
this - not without using something like a removable Lock-Tite adhesive.

Also: Take note of these measurements...

Outside Diameter of the glass achromatic doublets: 32.0mm

Inside Diameter of the lens barrels: 32.0mm

(That's right - the difference is so slight, I can't measure it with
my calipers - the glass fits snugly, but drops out easily.)

Don't miss this part:

The Inside Diameter of the ledge that supports the glass: 31.0mm

This ledge only protrudes 0.5mm inward from the barrel wall, all the
way around.

So... anyone attempting to craft some spacer rings to force the
lenses to sit farther from the film plane will have to machine
"washers" that are up to 3.0 mm thick at most (2.5 mm would allow a
full turn of the bezel threads) -AND- these "washers" must have an
outside diameter not exceeding 32.0mm, but an inside diameter not
less than 31.0mm. That will require some precise
craftsmanship. Count me out. :-)

Mike Davis

Michael Davis wrote:

>
> The Inside Diameter of the ledge that supports the glass: 31.0mm
>
> This ledge only protrudes 0.5mm inward from the barrel wall, all the
> way around.
>
> So... anyone attempting to craft some spacer rings to force the
> lenses to sit farther from the film plane will have to machine
> "washers" that are up to 3.0 mm thick at most (2.5 mm would allow a
> full turn of the bezel threads) -AND- these "washers" must have an
> outside diameter not exceeding 32.0mm, but an inside diameter not
> less than 31.0mm. That will require some precise
> craftsmanship. Count me out. :-)

I think you need to tilt your head to the side and look at the viewer
again. :)

Go to the hobby shop and buy some .5mm thick metal or plastic sheet.
Cut a strip 2.5mm wide by 100mm long (pi*32mm). Run it over the edge
of your desk lengthwise to give it a bit of a curl. Roll it up and
drop it into the lens holder, followed by the lens and the retaining
ring. Don't get too crazy about curling the sheet. It should spring
back enough to keep itself in place in the lens holder. Repeat.

You might be able to use something thinner. Cardstock might work, but
I'd worry about the cut edges being fuzzy.

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |

Brian,

At 11:35 AM 9/10/2008, you wrote:

>Go to the hobby shop and buy some .5mm thick metal or plastic sheet.
>Cut a strip 2.5mm wide by 100mm long (pi*32mm). Run it over the edge
>of your desk lengthwise to give it a bit of a curl. Roll it up and
>drop it into the lens holder, followed by the lens and the retaining
>ring. Don't get too crazy about curling the sheet. It should spring
>back enough to keep itself in place in the lens holder. Repeat.
>
>You might be able to use something thinner. Cardstock might work, but
>I'd worry about the cut edges being fuzzy.

That's brilliant! Problem solved.

Mike Davis

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

>
> Brian,
>
> At 11:35 AM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> >Go to the hobby shop and buy some .5mm thick metal or plastic

sheet.

> >Cut a strip 2.5mm wide by 100mm long (pi*32mm). Run it over the

edge

> >of your desk lengthwise to give it a bit of a curl. Roll it up and
> >drop it into the lens holder, followed by the lens and the

retaining

> >ring. Don't get too crazy about curling the sheet. It should

spring

> >back enough to keep itself in place in the lens holder. Repeat.
> >
> >You might be able to use something thinner. Cardstock might work,

but

> >I'd worry about the cut edges being fuzzy.
>
> That's brilliant! Problem solved.
>
> Mike Davis
>

Well, it would be even more brilliant if 3D World made an ever so
slight modification to correct this right at the factory ! It's not
as if we were calling for a complete redesign. And it's silly to
always have to make modifications to anything that comes from 3D
World. They should know what they are doing by now !

And we shouldn't have to tinker around on what is after all a brand
new product designed by people who have been producing stereo
equipment for over fifteen years. It's true that tinkerers such as
some of us will try to make it work, but others kinda expect
something they buy to just work like it should right out of the box !

I do hope that 3D World will listen and make at least some
corrections as they did on the TL-120...

Francois

Francois,

At 10:22 PM 9/11/2008, you wrote:

>Well, it would be even more brilliant if 3D World made an ever so
>slight modification to correct this right at the factory ! It's not
>as if we were calling for a complete redesign. And it's silly to
>always have to make modifications to anything that comes from 3D
>World. They should know what they are doing by now !
>
>And we shouldn't have to tinker around on what is after all a brand
>new product designed by people who have been producing stereo
>equipment for over fifteen years. It's true that tinkerers such as
>some of us will try to make it work, but others kinda expect
>something they buy to just work like it should right out of the box !
>
>I do hope that 3D World will listen and make at least some
>corrections as they did on the TL-120...
>
>Francois

I appreciate your willingness to vent your frustration publicly - it
makes me feel better about having done the same. I hear you brother,
but we have to remember that without 3DWorld, we'd be looking at
making our own viewers.

I didn't enjoy doing that even when I could buy complete,
ready-to-assemble SaturnSlide kits from Rocky Mountain Memories. On
average, it took me nine hours to assemble each viewer, gluing the
wooden parts together, applying black paint to the interior, sanding
the wood, applying spray lacquer to the exterior in multiple coats,
using steel wool between each application, etc. And the nine hours
I've quoted doesn't include the time required for glue, paint, and
lacquer coats to dry. Altogether, I'd do well to get a viewer
assembled in two days.

Assembling and finishing my first SaturnSlide viewer was fun, but
come my fourth or fifth viewer, it was already a tedious chore. I
had been accepted at the AfterImage Gallery
(http://www.afterimagegallery.com) and my work was selling - the
viewers were going out the door at $700.00 a piece ($500.00 to me)
and my mounted stereo views were selling for $300.00 each ($150.00 to
me after the gallery's 50% commission). After a couple of years, I
decided to pull out of the gallery and still have a standing
invitation from Ben Breard, the proprietor, to sell my work there
whenever I want.

Why did I leave the gallery? I was sick and tired of assembling
SaturnSlide viewers. For real! It was neither fun nor
profitable. At $150.00 per view, I can't even say I was making a
profit on the art itself when you consider the cost of travel, film
and processing, and the many trips back and forth to the lab beating
them over the head to produce dust-free contact dupes at a cost of
$44.00 per stereo view. Every time Ben Breard would call me with the
"good news" that he needed another SaturnSlide viewer, my initial
reaction was always the same - disappointment with the realization
that I've got to put together another kit and go through the hassle
of having more dupes made. It just didn't make sense to
continue. The "glory" of actually being in that gallery, selling my
work to serious collectors, had faded. It just seemed like I was
doing Ben and his customers a favor, accomplishing very little more
than fueling my pride.

Not long after I left the AfterImage, the SaturnSlide kits were
discontinued for lack of affordable, surplus, achromatic doublets
having the right specifications. So, even if I wanted to get back
into business with Ben Breard today, there are no viewers available
for him to sell to his clients. I do have an inventory of King Inn
viewers, but Ben didn't want to carry them when SaturnSlides were
available and I doubt he'd find them any more aesthetic today. The
King Inns aren't nearly as attractive as the SaturnSlides,
cosmetically, and their PCX lenses suffer chromatic aberrations
off-axis. The King Inn view is actually pretty good, the focus range
is phenomenal, it offers back lighting via a bright florescent tube
in a nice parabolic trough reflector, and it even offers front
lighting via a selection switch, for looking at Holmes views, but the
weaknesses of its PCX lenses are noticable if you can do a
side-by-side comparison with a viewer having achromatic doublets.

I have "a real job" that pays me a lot more per hour than I was
making at The AfterImage Gallery, but I LOVE selling stereo views to
people who already have viewers. 2D photographers can sell unframed
prints - why can't we? I don't want to be in the viewer business. I
want to sell my stereography without worrying about coming up with
viewers. Right now, 3DWorld is our only hope for making either
gallery or private sales happen. Even then, we'll be up against the
difficulties of duping our views, but I'd be willing to sell original
chromes (at the right price) if a good viewer were readily available.

So... I am just as frustrated as you are Francois, but at the same
time, I have to encourage you to realize a few things about this new
3DWorld viewer:

The interocular adjustment goes as wide as 66mm - this is one
millimeter MORE than is necessary to fuse Infinity homologs in stereo
views having an OFD equal to MAOFD, without having to diverge our
eyes. The range of adjustment goes down to worthless lens separation
distances, but it does INCLUDE 65.0 mm - the ideal lens separation
for use with mounts that have a 62.0 mm Window Separation.

*** In other words, don't let 3DWorld's poor choice of interocular
adjustment range stop you from buying this viewer. The only thing
lost is the ability to service people with IPDs greater than about 71
or 72 mm (taking advantage of the 32mm diameter lens' clear aperture.) ***

Regarding the focus range, it truly stops at Infinity - 75mm. They
should have allowed us to rack the lenses farther out, but they
didn't. Still, it's certainly no worse than the 3DWorld STL viewer
that has focus fixed at 75mm.

*** In other words, if the 3DWorld STL viewer works for you, or you
are in the least bit myopic (nearsighted), don't let 3DWorld's poor
choice of focus range stop you from buying this viewer. ***

Regarding the illumination, I honestly think most people will find no
fault with it at all. I like brightly lit chromes. This viewer is
not as bright as I prefer, but it would be unfair to describe it as
"dim," and the uniformity of the diffusion as well as the color of
the light are truly spectacular, in my opinion. Yes, it would be
nice if they had concerned themselves less with battery life by using
more LEDs or brighter LEDs. And it would be nice if they had
included an external power jack, but...

*** Don't let the less than perfect illumination stop you from buying
3DWorld's new viewer. It's an absolutely wonderful improvement over
using the STL viewer and saying that doesn't do it justice. ***

Regarding the diffuser sitting too close behind the film - causing
any dust on the diffuser to be visible when the stereo view is in
focus - the venerable SaturnSlide suffers the exact same problem. I
can't count the number of times (hundreds?) I've had to take the set
screw all the way out so that I could remove the SaturnSlide's lens
board and blow compressed air into the viewer to clean the diffuser.
I modified the last viewer kits I assembled by inserting 1/2-inch
long dowels at the four corners of the diffuser to postilion it as
far back into the light box as I could without vignetting the corners
of the stereo view.

*** So don't let the dust problem stop you from buying 3DWorld's new
viewer. Just get yourself a can of Dust-Off and deal with it. Carry
a tiny Phillips head screwdriver if you want to remove the one screw
that gains access to cleaning the diffuser. :-) ***

Seriously, I did my best to be objective when I wrote my original
review, but I want to encourage people to be realistic about the
shortcomings I found, not fatally pessimtic. I genuinely feel most
people will find this new viewer to be a joy to use. Just start by
running the interocular adjustment out as far as it will go and do
the same with the focusing. There is NO WAY you won't like it at
least as much as the 3DWorld STL viewer. Of that, I am
certain. It's truly a terrific value for the money. (Shhhh... don't
tell them that.)

Here's the good news. Thanks to George, I am actually in a dialog
with 3DWorld now - they are asking questions about my review and I am
answering them. Yeeehaw! I can't believe how long it has taken to
get their ear. They want to produce a good product. They want to
learn. They want to understand what has to be changed and why. It
may be a long time before we see another viewer from them, though. I
have no idea how heavily invested they are in the current design, but
it wouldn't surprise me if this current viewer is all we'll see from
3DWorld for another two years or more. Remember that we first saw
pictures of this viewer 20 months ago.

My advice is to forget about what's not yet available (or may never
be available) and instead just enjoy what IS available right now.

Mike Davis

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

>
> Assembling and finishing my first SaturnSlide viewer was fun, but
> come my fourth or fifth viewer, it was already a tedious
> chore..... I

Great story about the trials and tribs of selling 3D's. I feel your
pain. I sold the last MirScopes a couple days ago, and am much
relieved and energized to do new stuff!

> 2D photographers can sell unframed prints - why can't we? I don't

want to be in the viewer business. I want to sell my stereography
without worrying about coming up with viewers.

Right on.

I made bright LED backlights for about 20 3DW viewers and mounted
them in a Franklin Londin type of gooseneck gismo. But even that
project seemed to take forever. So I welcome the new viewer and
will try it. Hopefully there is an easy way to extend the focus.
But even then, getting good MF's made from digital source material
is probably at least as difficult as getting good dupes (though,
from what it sounds, less expensive).

I see two possibilities: a) The return of stereojets. There is a
group at Harvard (who holds the patent) that is potentially
interested. b) The ability to market blu-ray discs of 3D images
when (and if, though IMO likely) home-3D-theatre becomes a reality,
and millions have the HD displays.

John






Right now, 3DWorld is our only hope for making either

> gallery or private sales happen. Even then, we'll be up against

the

> difficulties of duping our views, but I'd be willing to sell

original

> chromes (at the right price) if a good viewer were readily

available.

>
> So... I am just as frustrated as you are Francois, but at the

same

> time, I have to encourage you to realize a few things about this

new

> 3DWorld viewer:
>
> The interocular adjustment goes as wide as 66mm - this is one
> millimeter MORE than is necessary to fuse Infinity homologs in

stereo

> views having an OFD equal to MAOFD, without having to diverge our
> eyes. The range of adjustment goes down to worthless lens

separation

> distances, but it does INCLUDE 65.0 mm - the ideal lens separation
> for use with mounts that have a 62.0 mm Window Separation.
>
> *** In other words, don't let 3DWorld's poor choice of interocular
> adjustment range stop you from buying this viewer. The only thing
> lost is the ability to service people with IPDs greater than about

71

> or 72 mm (taking advantage of the 32mm diameter lens' clear

aperture.) ***

>
> Regarding the focus range, it truly stops at Infinity - 75mm.

They

> should have allowed us to rack the lenses farther out, but they
> didn't. Still, it's certainly no worse than the 3DWorld STL

viewer

> that has focus fixed at 75mm.
>
> *** In other words, if the 3DWorld STL viewer works for you, or

you

> are in the least bit myopic (nearsighted), don't let 3DWorld's

poor

> choice of focus range stop you from buying this viewer. ***
>
> Regarding the illumination, I honestly think most people will find

no

> fault with it at all. I like brightly lit chromes. This viewer

is

> not as bright as I prefer, but it would be unfair to describe it

as

> "dim," and the uniformity of the diffusion as well as the color of
> the light are truly spectacular, in my opinion. Yes, it would be
> nice if they had concerned themselves less with battery life by

using

> more LEDs or brighter LEDs. And it would be nice if they had
> included an external power jack, but...
>
> *** Don't let the less than perfect illumination stop you from

buying

> 3DWorld's new viewer. It's an absolutely wonderful improvement

over

> using the STL viewer and saying that doesn't do it justice. ***
>
> Regarding the diffuser sitting too close behind the film - causing
> any dust on the diffuser to be visible when the stereo view is in
> focus - the venerable SaturnSlide suffers the exact same problem.

I

> can't count the number of times (hundreds?) I've had to take the

set

> screw all the way out so that I could remove the SaturnSlide's

lens

> board and blow compressed air into the viewer to clean the

diffuser.

> I modified the last viewer kits I assembled by inserting 1/2-inch
> long dowels at the four corners of the diffuser to postilion it as
> far back into the light box as I could without vignetting the

corners

> of the stereo view.
>
> *** So don't let the dust problem stop you from buying 3DWorld's

new

> viewer. Just get yourself a can of Dust-Off and deal with it.

Carry

> a tiny Phillips head screwdriver if you want to remove the one

screw

> that gains access to cleaning the diffuser. :-) ***
>
> Seriously, I did my best to be objective when I wrote my original
> review, but I want to encourage people to be realistic about the
> shortcomings I found, not fatally pessimtic. I genuinely feel

most

> people will find this new viewer to be a joy to use. Just start

by

> running the interocular adjustment out as far as it will go and do
> the same with the focusing. There is NO WAY you won't like it at
> least as much as the 3DWorld STL viewer. Of that, I am
> certain. It's truly a terrific value for the money. (Shhhh...

don't

> tell them that.)
>
> Here's the good news. Thanks to George, I am actually in a dialog
> with 3DWorld now - they are asking questions about my review and I

am

> answering them. Yeeehaw! I can't believe how long it has taken

to

> get their ear. They want to produce a good product. They want to
> learn. They want to understand what has to be changed and why.

It

> may be a long time before we see another viewer from them,

though. I

> have no idea how heavily invested they are in the current design,

but

> it wouldn't surprise me if this current viewer is all we'll see

from

> 3DWorld for another two years or more. Remember that we first saw
> pictures of this viewer 20 months ago.
>
> My advice is to forget about what's not yet available (or may

never

> be available) and instead just enjoy what IS available right now.
>
> Mike Davis
>

I just received my new viewer (a friend brought it back from a recent
trip to China).

I have only had a chance to give it a quick look and viewing of a few of
my images.

I must preface the following by saying that I am very near sighted and
require glasses that correct my vision to the point where they are too
strong for close reading. This means that I eihter take them off and
place print a few inches from my face to read or I place 2.5 diopter
reading glases over my prescription glasses.

So, with my normal glasses on and the viewer racked all the way out I get
a perfectly focused view. Without my glasses I am not able to achieve
focus even with the viewer racked all the way in. I am also not able to
see the whole image due to the distance of my eyes to the lenses. In fact
in order to see the entire image my eyes need to be almost touching the
lenses.

I find the light plenty bright, even with some of my reverse-processed
Tech Pan images which have extreme contrast. I also tend to slightly
under expose my Velvia and ProviaF to get a bit more saturation and none
of them seem to lose any detail in the shadows.

Once I get some more time to play with this viewer and have more people
look at it I will post what I find.

At this point I am very happy with the quality of the view I am getting.

Thanks,

David W. Kesner
Boise, Idaho, USA

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

>
> Francois,
> I appreciate your willingness to vent your frustration publicly - it
> makes me feel better about having done the same. I hear you
> brother,
> but we have to remember that without 3DWorld, we'd be looking at
> making our own viewers.

> (novel-length response)

> My advice is to forget about what's not yet available (or may never
> be available) and instead just enjoy what IS available right now.
>
> Mike Davis

Wow, Mike, that is definitely the most elaborate and lengthy response
I ever got to a post ! I think I will frame it ! ;-)

You are indeed quite right. Like many involved in 3D photography, I
share your frustrations of not finding 3D equipment that works exactly
as it should and of always having to rig something up or outright
design something to achieve what I want.

It's also true that without 3D World we would be much worse off and we
should only count our blessings that the owner of 3D World is such a
fan of 3D photography. But that is probably why one cannot help but
feel frustrated that they would go to the extent of designing a new
more sophisticated viewer and yet end up making mistakes that could
easily have been avoided. In other words, it would have cost them not
a penny more to make a perfect viewer than it is costing them to make
a better viewer with flaws that have to be corrected by the user.

But of course, "better" is preferable to "worse" or to "no longer
available" !

Francois