I've been enjoying my new illuminated viewer and have a lot more
things I'd like to write up on it. I sat down to update my web
pages this weekend and found I have really grown to dislike my
old web-publishing paradigm. So rather than pump a whole bunch
more information into a static html web site, I've decided I'll
put my new content behind a nicer look and feel with some
edit-in-place capabilities.

So it is, as always, a work in progress, but I have a few
thoughts at:
http://stereo.thurstons.us/content/?page_id=25
I have some more information to share in the next few days
regarding power consumption, light output, and a couple of
modifications. We'll see how my web layout works :)


[ For those who don't want to (or can't) go visit the web, and
for the list archives, the content is also included inline. ]

The focusing viewer from 3D World has been several years in the
making. It has its shortcomings but it is a capable viewer and
is, AFAIK, the only illuminated medium format stereo viewer on
the market.

* Primarily plastic construction
* Coated achromatic lenses (75mm focal length, 32mm diameter)
* Focusing by lever operated rack and pinion
* Adjustable lens separation
* LED illuminated with a momentary switch and powered by
three AA batteries
* Designed for use with 80×140mm plastic mounts and
adaptable for use with 80×132 cardboard mounts
* 14 ounces ( 397 grams) with batteries
* Less than $100 (those are US dollars in 2008)


The most important question is, how do slides look when seen in
the new viewer? The simple answer is, they look great.

The slot in this top-loading viewer is an exact fit for the 3D
World plastic mounts (80×140mm). It will take 80×132mm cardboard
mounts, but they really need an adapter plate to center the
images in the lenses. The coated 75mm lenses are a good match
for the normal taking lenses on most medium format cameras. They
stand well clear of the viewer body and introduce virtually no
chromatic or spherical aberrations. The lens spacing is
adjustable (between 61 and 66mm) by a simple sliding motion.
Focusing is acomplished by moving the lenses fore and aft with a
pair of small levers on the left and right sides. Pressing a
switch on the right rear corner of the viewer turns on the light.

So what’s not to like on the new viewer? For a new product in
the market, it has a curious list of deficiencies and we may as
well get them listed up front so we can talk about them.

* The lenses can’t focus past infinity. This means that if
you are far sighted, you may not be able to see your slides in
sharp focus.
* The illuminator is only 12mm behind the slide. This means
any dust on the light panel will be in focus behind your slide.
* The adjustable interocular distance starts too narrow and
doesn’t go wide enough. As the 3D World mounts have apertures
spaced at 62mm, lenses spaced at less than 62mm is totally
pointless and anything less than about 63mm is mostly pointless.
* There are some undesirable internal reflections from a few
glossy parts of the viewer.
* There is no provision for external power to the light.

Sure, we’d rather have a perfect viewer, but just how important
are these problems? With a fairly simple modification, the range
of focus can be made much more useful. Blowing the dust off the
illuminator isn’t unreasonable and a little bit of adjustment in
the lens spacing is better than none at all. If the internal
reflections are really bothersome, a little flat-black paint or
flocking material isn’t too hard to apply. As for external
power, I’ll probably end up using some rechargeable NiMH
batteries anyway.

So sure, it isn’t perfect, but have you compared it with the
other medium format viewers on the market? Have you seen any
other medium format viewers on the market? No? I haven’t
either. So take this one as it is or take it and add your own
improvements. It’s your best and easiest path to show your
medium format images in their best light.

_________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

Hi John,

>http://stereo.thurstons.us/content/?page_id=25

That's a great review and I really like your new web site layout.

I agree with every point you've made regarding the 3DWorld
viewer. Just think how disappointed we would be if it was the only
illuminated MF viewer out there, but didn't present so nice a
view. My appreciation of this little viewer is only improving with time.

I'm looking forward to any further observations you'll be
contributing, but take your time - we can wait! :-)

Thanks,

Mike Davis

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

>
> Hi John,
>
> >http://stereo.thurstons.us/content/?page_id=25
>
> That's a great review and I really like your new web site layout.
>
> I agree with every point you've made regarding the 3DWorld
> viewer. Just think how disappointed we would be if it was the

only

> illuminated MF viewer out there, but didn't present so nice a
> view. My appreciation of this little viewer is only improving

with time.

>
> I'm looking forward to any further observations you'll be
> contributing, but take your time - we can wait! :-)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Davis

It's funny how we 3D nuts are willing to accept flaws that the 2D
community never would ! I can't think of a single situation where a
2D product came out and people said "It's great even though it's got
all those shortcomings..." But I guess, we've always done this...

I hope everyone who itemizes these shortcomings is forwarding their
comments to 3D World. It should be easy enough for them to correct
at least a few of the design flaws.

Francois

depthcam wrote:

> It's funny how we 3D nuts are willing to accept flaws that the 2D
> community never would ! I can't think of a single situation where a
> 2D product came out and people said "It's great even though it's got
> all those shortcomings..."

I strongly disagree. It happens all the time. The
strongest example I can think up on the spur of the moment:

When the early digital cameras shipped in the late 90's (and
even now), plenty of people said/say things like that. "It
only has .75megapixel but the next version is promised to be
better." "There is no remote shutter release available but
XYZ company says they will release one soon."

> But I guess, we've always done this...

We have and we will. In all areas of our lives we will
desire more and better than what we have now. But this
thread now wanders into the realms of philosophy and
religion so I will say no more.
--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

> depthcam wrote:
>
> > It's funny how we 3D nuts are willing to accept flaws that the

2D

> > community never would ! I can't think of a single situation

where a

> > 2D product came out and people said "It's great even though it's

got

> > all those shortcomings..."

> John Thurston wrote:
> I strongly disagree.

I am not sure what you are disagreeing to ? That I find it strange
that a company that has been in business PRODUCING EXCLUSIVELY 3D
equipment since the early nineties still doesn't even know how to
design a simple slide viewer after FIFTEEN YEARS ???

> It happens all the time.

That doesn't make it OK !

> The strongest example I can think up on the spur of the moment:
>
> When the early digital cameras shipped in the late 90's (and
> even now), plenty of people said/say things like that. "It
> only has .75megapixel but the next version is promised to be
> better." "There is no remote shutter release available but
> XYZ company says they will release one soon."

There is quite a difference between early digital cameras - which
were an emerging technology in the ninteties - and a simple
stereoscope basically identical and unchanged since the 19th
century. The fact is that the errors 3D World made on this viewer
show a surprising lack of understanding of the most basic rules of
stereo equipment design. A designer that made such gross errors for
a digital photography equipment manufacturer would have been fired
the next day.

Francois

depthcam wrote:

>
> It's funny how we 3D nuts are willing to accept flaws that the 2D
> community never would ! I can't think of a single situation where a
> 2D product came out and people said "It's great even though it's got
> all those shortcomings..." But I guess, we've always done this...

I guess you've never used a Lubitel, or a Lomo, or a Diana, or a
Holga, or a Kiev 88, or any number of other low end or toy cameras.
Some of those cameras are junk (especially the Diana and the Holga),
but some of them can take very nice photos.

--
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 |

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

>
> depthcam wrote:
> >
> > It's funny how we 3D nuts are willing to accept flaws that the 2D
> > community never would ! I can't think of a single situation

where a

> > 2D product came out and people said "It's great even though it's

got

> > all those shortcomings..." |

>I got my last Leica M6(new) in the nineties, after one year (out of

warranty) the chromed top began to create bubbles, an error to chrome
zinc alloy!, after 70 years of chroming pieces.
The stablishment said "it´s great even though.."
Camera repairmen and thousands of owners could talk you of a lot of
breakdowns due to a bad design on Zeiss cameras , Nikon, Canon and so
on.

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

>
> depthcam wrote:
> >
> > It's funny how we 3D nuts are willing to accept flaws that the

2D

> > community never would ! I can't think of a single situation

where a

> > 2D product came out and people said "It's great even though it's

got

> > all those shortcomings..." But I guess, we've always done

this...

>
> I guess you've never used a Lubitel, or a Lomo, or a Diana, or a
> Holga, or a Kiev 88, or any number of other low end or toy cameras.
> Some of those cameras are junk (especially the Diana and the

Holga),

> but some of them can take very nice photos.

I am not sure how that relates to a poorly designed stereo
viewer... The cameras you list are recognized as cheap cameras.
When someone chooses a Lubitel he does have a choice and isn't
assuming that it's the best camera out there. In the present case,
we have a camera (the TL-120) with some of the sharpest optics in
the world and a viewer with remarkable lenses, yet glaring errors in
the viewer design. It is a different category altogether.

Francois

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

>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Brian Reynolds wrote:
> >
> > depthcam wrote:
> > >
> > > It's funny how we 3D nuts are willing to accept flaws that the

2D

> > > community never would ! I can't think of a single situation
> where a
> > > 2D product came out and people said "It's great even though

it's

> got
> > > all those shortcomings..." |
>
> >I got my last Leica M6(new) in the nineties, after one year (out

of

> warranty) the chromed top began to create bubbles, an error to

chrome

> zinc alloy!, after 70 years of chroming pieces.
> The stablishment said "it´s great even though.."
> Camera repairmen and thousands of owners could talk you of a lot

of

> breakdowns due to a bad design on Zeiss cameras , Nikon, Canon and

so

> on.

A cosmetic flaw is quite a different story that a design flaw,
especially considering that the errors 3D World made are very
elementary. But I guess you are proving my point since there's
already three people here coming to the defense of poor design !

Francois

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

>
> I've been enjoying my new illuminated viewer...
> * The lenses can't focus past infinity..... With a fairly simple

modification, the range of focus can be made much more useful.

>I have just tested the MF3DW IW. it is an useless viewer for me, as

I cannot view the slides like I do with the Mounting Jig viewer.

What fairly modifications must be made to get a more useful range of
focus?

What is the focusing range compared JIG/IW?

Antonio

arclotet wrote:

> What fairly modifications must be made to get a more useful range of
> focus?

In a message on Sep 13th I wrote:
Each lens is held in an aluminum barrel by the previously
mentioned threaded retaining ring. These aluminum barrels
are _threaded_ into the viewer's focusing cones. There is
plenty of depth available to adjust the lenses past infinity
by unscrewing these barrels from their cones, inserting a
shim and tightening the barrels again. That is what I have
just done and here's how you can.

1) Remove the lens retaining ring
2) Tip the viewer over and let the lens drop out
(remember which way the lens came out)
3) Grasp the grey focusing cone and use a rubber jar opener
to loosen the threaded end of the lens barrel. Don't try to
unscrew by twisting against the viewer body. Work against
the focusing cone.
4) Insert your preferred shimming material
5) Thread the lens barrel back into the focusing cone
and tighten it
6) Reinstall the lens

I used a piece of 12 gauge copper wire which moved my lenses
out 2mm. The wire could be painted but I actually think the
copper stripe looks pretty cool :)


arclotet also asked:

> What is the focusing range compared JIG/IW?

I'm sorry but I don't own the mounting jig so I am unable to
answer this question.
_________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

FUJIFILM FinePix Real 3D System

FujiFilm has announced a new 3D system, including a dual-lens digital camera, an 8.4-inch lenticular backlit LCD photo frame, and a service for making lenticular prints.  Could be fun, but the low resolution kills it for me.   The lenticular LCD photo frame only has 920,000 pixels (about 830x1100 pixels).

Searching the web, I've not been able to find any specification of the camera's sensor resolution, nor how large the prints are.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn the sensors only capture 4 or 5 Megapixels - enough to make small lenticular prints, and way more than enough for their LCD photo frame.

The following press release mentions some possible uses in 2D photography with the synchronized, dual-lens camera, but surprisingly, that list does not include the taking of synchronized mis-matched exposures for HDR purposes.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092209fujifilm3D.asp

Mike Davis

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

>
>
> I'm sorry but I don't own the mounting jig so I am unable to
> answer this question.
> _________________________
> John Thurston
> Juneau, Alaska


>Thanks John for the tips, sorry you don´t own a mountig jig 3dWorld,

but if you can see slides with the Viewer of the mountig jig I´m sure
you will never use again the MF-IW.

Antonio

arclotet wrote:

> John Thurston wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry but I don't own the mounting jig so I am unable to
>> answer this question. [about the range of focus]

> Thanks John for the tips, sorry you don´t own a mountig jig 3dWorld,
> but if you can see slides with the Viewer of the mountig jig I´m sure
> you will never use again the MF-IW.

I don't own one and am unable to make measurements of one, but
that doesn't mean I've never had one in my hands or seen a slide
through one. I know of more than one person who uses the
mounting jig as a viewer.

When I bought my second TL-120, I purchased just the camera and
let George sell the bundled jig and slides separately. The
current mounting jig is a big improvement over the original, but
there are a few features which make me prefer my own jig for
mounting.

"Just use it as a viewer!", I hear you say. There are two
problems with that. I have never liked open-frame viewers and I
find my image enjoyment increases greatly when I can bring the
viewer to my head rather than my head to the viewer. I want my
slides lit from behind and floating in a sea of darkness. I want
my head positioned as the camera was when the image was made.

Many people use open-frame and table-top viewers but I prefer not.
_________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

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

>
> > John Thurston wrote:
>
> "Just use it as a viewer!", I hear you say. There are two
> problems with that. I have never liked open-frame viewers and I
> find my image enjoyment increases greatly when I can bring the
> viewer to my head rather than my head to the viewer. I want my
> slides lit from behind and floating in a sea of darkness. I want
> my head positioned as the camera was when the image was made.
>
> Many people use open-frame and table-top viewers but I prefer not.
> _________________________
> John Thurston
> Juneau, Alaska

> Of course anyone has the own preferences , but in the jig

the slides are lit from behind and floating on darkness, as slides are
placed on the bottom of a deep slide box.

Lenses are mounted on a facial anatomic piece to prevent surrounding
light.

I see the slides sitting on an armchair just holding the jig like a
camera, my neck would not support table top position so long.

THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE SLIDES SEEN IN THE JIG IS TWICE THE BRIGHTNESS OF
A MF-IW, = 1 EV
that gives to my slides the brightness I tried to get when shooting.

The MF-IW introduces to my slides sensation of exposure error

Focusing has so wide range that I don´t need to use my nearsight or
farsight glasses to reach a crisp slide detail

Finally the power supply is DC or Alcaline AA.

Only to inform the ones not have tested the jig as a viewer!

Regards
Antonio