Hi All,

I have been using the TL-120 for over a year now. Overall very happy with it. I do have one niggling query... the optics of the lenses toe-in. When I bought the camera from Dr T, he said that this was on purpose in order to make the most of the image when mounting. (Which does makes sense.)

On my camera the overlap between the left and right images is 3mm on the film at infinity. This means when mounted, separation of points at infinity have to be 64mm or greater otherwise the sides of the film frames will show. Obviously this is normally fine for most viewers who have an interocular distance of 2.5" or greater. But children and others find it more difficult since their eyes have to diverge. Have any other TL-120 owners had similar problems? Are all the cameras manufactured with the optics set this way or just mine? Any ideas or views would be most welcome.

Thanks!
Michael

> the optics of the lenses toe-in. When I bought the camera from Dr T,
> he said that this was on purpose in order to make the most of the
> image when mounting.

I don't remember saying this and you might be confusing toe-in of the
lenses with shifting the film gate to set the stereo window. But this
shifting of the film gate has the opposite effect of overlap. Overlap
means that the window is "beyond infinity", which is obviously a
problem.

George

Sorry George, as soon as I posted the message I knew that the terminology was incorrect.

Yes I mean the film gate. Obviously in the design of the camera the film gate has been shifted by 3mm in order to allow one to correctly set the stereo window. I have gotten used to using terms loosely with non-stereo people. I forget how important the exact terms are here! A bad habit. :)

So my question is what image separation at infinity best suits all ages. I have been cropping my images and using super slides and this has been less of a problem. But I am now looking to use the TL-120 mounts and to show the full images.

Michael :)

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "DrT \(George Themelis\)" wrote:
>
> > the optics of the lenses toe-in. When I bought the camera from Dr T,
> > he said that this was on purpose in order to make the most of the
> > image when mounting.
>
> I don't remember saying this and you might be confusing toe-in of the
> lenses with shifting the film gate to set the stereo window. But this
> shifting of the film gate has the opposite effect of overlap. Overlap
> means that the window is "beyond infinity", which is obviously a
> problem.
>
> George
>

> So my question is what image separation at infinity best suits all
> ages. I have been cropping my images and using super slides and this
> has been less of a problem. But I am now looking to use the TL-120
> mounts and to show the full images.

Hi Michael,

The image separation is determined by the design of the mount, not the
camera. The design of the mount then determines the design of the
viewer. The design of the camera is not a significant factor regarding
infinity viewing separation.

Shifting the images closer together to reduce their infinity separation
to make them more appropriate for children, will create two problems: 1)
The stereo window formed by the mount will be off. 2) The viewer used
should also have the ability to bring the lenses closer and right now
this is not possible for the viewers available from Stereo World.

If you have a viewer that allows you to bring the lenses closer together
and if you have a mount *whose openings are closer together* and are
smaller in size, then you are all set.

George

Why not make 2 monocular viewers with individually mounted slides. the
left monocular is fixed, the right monocular slides to suit IPD, that is
the best of all worlds... the problem is, young kids <7 have IPD's down
in the 45mm - 50 mm IPD range, The film and mount, even at 52mm square
chips will be 58mm, defeating the purpose.

So I would crop down the visible film to 45mm square and use very small
interior borders on your individual slide mounts, so maybe 50mm min.
separation. Use Georges lenses. You will have the best possible
museum viewer for kids and adults. The spacing of the windows (mount
opening) is not relevant....what's relevant is the positioning of the
film inside the window.



DrT (George Themelis) wrote:

>> So my question is what image separation at infinity best suits all
>> ages. I have been cropping my images and using super slides and this
>> has been less of a problem. But I am now looking to use the TL-120
>> mounts and to show the full images.
>>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> The image separation is determined by the design of the mount, not the
> camera. The design of the mount then determines the design of the
> viewer. The design of the camera is not a significant factor regarding
> infinity viewing separation.
>
> Shifting the images closer together to reduce their infinity separation
> to make them more appropriate for children, will create two problems: 1)
> The stereo window formed by the mount will be off. 2) The viewer used
> should also have the ability to bring the lenses closer and right now
> this is not possible for the viewers available from Stereo World.
>
> If you have a viewer that allows you to bring the lenses closer together
> and if you have a mount *whose openings are closer together* and are
> smaller in size, then you are all set.
>
> George
>
>
>

Yes... the camera issue was a bit of a red herring. I can see that all the TL-120 cameras have been designed with a shifted film gate allowing the mounted images (in the MF stereo mounts) to have a minimum separation at infinity of around 62mm and so giving one about 3mm to play with (assuming one doesn't want a separation greater than 65mm).

Obviously if one can change the mount and viewer design, one can have greater control of the separation at infinity and the stereo window. Perhaps I should stick with my super slides... just always feels like a shame to have to crop the film.

Regarding De Wijs, Jeroen was planning to create a MF version of his 35mm viewers. He changed his mind since he said that there was not enough interest for him to go ahead with its manufacture. Perhaps if we whip up some enthusiasm and interest in a high-end MF viewer, he might change his mind. I also have his combi viewer. Pricey but very useful!

Michael





-- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "DrT \(George Themelis\)" wrote:

>
> > So my question is what image separation at infinity best suits all
> > ages. I have been cropping my images and using super slides and this
> > has been less of a problem. But I am now looking to use the TL-120
> > mounts and to show the full images.
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> The image separation is determined by the design of the mount, not the
> camera. The design of the mount then determines the design of the
> viewer. The design of the camera is not a significant factor regarding
> infinity viewing separation.
>
> Shifting the images closer together to reduce their infinity separation
> to make them more appropriate for children, will create two problems: 1)
> The stereo window formed by the mount will be off. 2) The viewer used
> should also have the ability to bring the lenses closer and right now
> this is not possible for the viewers available from Stereo World.
>
> If you have a viewer that allows you to bring the lenses closer together
> and if you have a mount *whose openings are closer together* and are
> smaller in size, then you are all set.
>
> George
>

verityspace3d wrote:

> Obviously if one can change the mount and viewer design,
> one can have greater control of the separation at infinity
> and the stereo window. Perhaps I should stick with my
> super slides... just always feels like a shame to have to
> crop the film.

I'm not sure I understand why you are limited to super-slide
(40x40mm) format. Are you not able to work with 80x132mm
mounts with 50x50mm apertures?
________________________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

Hello John. The choice of super slides is dictated by the design of the de Wijs exhibition viewers that I use. (Deep recesses to hold each slide.) Anyway thanks for the interest and help! Michael

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, John Thurston wrote:
>
> verityspace3d wrote:
> > Obviously if one can change the mount and viewer design,
> > one can have greater control of the separation at infinity
> > and the stereo window. Perhaps I should stick with my
> > super slides... just always feels like a shame to have to
> > crop the film.
>
> I'm not sure I understand why you are limited to super-slide
> (40x40mm) format. Are you not able to work with 80x132mm
> mounts with 50x50mm apertures?
> ________________________________________
> John Thurston
> Juneau, Alaska
> http://stereo.thurstons.us
>

> Yes... the camera issue was a bit of a red herring. I can see that all
> the TL-120 cameras have been designed with a shifted film gate
> allowing the mounted images (in the MF stereo mounts) to have a
> minimum separation at infinity of around 62mm and so giving one about
> 3mm to play with (assuming one doesn't want a separation greater than
> 65mm).

Again, I will say that it is not the design of the camera but the design
of the mount that gives you a window separation of 62mm and consequently
an infinity separation of around 65mm. The shift of the camera's gates,
if anything, helps conserve film and gives you more freedom in mounting,
not less. You make it sound as if this 3mm shift is a problem. It is
an advantage, a desirable feature, not a problem.

> Obviously if one can change the mount and viewer design, one can have
> greater control of the separation at infinity and the stereo window.
> Perhaps I should stick with my super slides... just always feels like
> a shame to have to crop the film.

Bill's suggestion to use separate mounts (instead of a stereo mount) is
the best. You then have full control over the infinity separation and
the spacing of the viewer lenses.

In theory, the lenses should be spaced at a distance equal to the
infinity separation in the image (I personally tend to open them a bit
more because my eyes feel a bit more comfortable viewing with a slight
convergence - any divergence make the image impossible to fuse).

So, you can design a viewer with the lenses spaced at the infinity
separation of the image and have a control to adjust them by moving one
lens *and* the corresponding mount. This way the viewer could be used
by any person (from children at 50mm eye spacing to say some adults with
70mm eye spacing) by adjusting the spacing of the lenses to match the
spacing of their eyes.

George

"DrT (George Themelis)" <drt-3d@att.net>wrote:

> So, you can design a viewer with the lenses spaced at the

infinity

> separation of the image and have a control to adjust them

by moving one

> lens *and* the corresponding mount. This way the viewer

could be used

> by any person (from children at 50mm eye spacing to say

some adults with

> 70mm eye spacing) by adjusting the spacing of the lenses

to match the

> spacing of their eyes.
>
> George

I agree with all you have said here George but I believe
Michael is wanting his images to be viewed by children with
45mm eye spacing as well as adults with wider spacing. When
using two single viewers side by side. The viewer needs to
be wider than the film chip and center to center spacing of
the viewers to get stereo would have to be at least as much
as the width of a single viewer. To get 45mm lens spacing
the viewers would require no more width than 45mm and so the
film chips would have to be less than 45mm wide. So he said
40mm.

Of course there is a possibility of doing as is done with
Holmes viewers using "prismatic lenses". (Another can of
worms.)

Chuck Holzner

> To get 45mm lens spacing
> the viewers would require no more width than 45mm and so the
> film chips would have to be less than 45mm wide.

Sorry, I did not realize that this could be a problem :) (I was
thinking in terms of 35mm slides where there is room to bring the lenses
together without overlapping the slides)

Another solution with 35mm slides is the 2x2x2 viewer with a flexible
hinge. To reduce the lens distance, bend the hinge. This is how my
daughter first saw a stereo slide when she was around 5 years old. This
could work with MF too.

George

Thanks Chuck, at least someone understands me! Luckily children seem to have a greater ability to diverge than adults. But I wish I never asked now... Talk about a can of worms!

George you misunderstand me regarding the lenses issues. I agreed with you and my reply stated that "yes" the film gate has been shifted in order to give one a few extra mm of film to play with. You reply "Again I will say etc etc... " sounds like I have said something wrong. I am new to this forum but slightly feel that if one says "red" someone will say it is wrong and the answer is "blue" and vice versa.

Also I know that many of you guys are very technical and come from technical backgrounds and the idea of building a viewer over the weekend is not something out of the ordinary. But I am an artist who using stereo photos and moving images in my work. I am not an engineer. I know that stereoscopic photography (like photography in general) attracts the technically minded. But it also attracts artists. In the photography world (and I have an MA in photography) the world of the photographer and the world of the artist who uses photographs are different and the subject is approached from very different directions.

I originally just wanted to know whether a) Other people's TL-120 cameras were the same as mine (which now that George has explained the shifted film frame I understand. Thank you.) and b) if anyone one knows where I can buy professional high-end MF viewers that I can mount in a contemporary gallery. I didn't know that everything would get so complicated. So thank you George to putting me straight regarding the question of the film gate and also a thank you to everyone else regarding ideas for MF viewers!

Love to you all,
Michael

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck Holzner" <3D4me@...> wrote:
>
> "DrT (George Themelis)" wrote:
>
> > So, you can design a viewer with the lenses spaced at the
> infinity
> > separation of the image and have a control to adjust them
> by moving one
> > lens *and* the corresponding mount. This way the viewer
> could be used
> > by any person (from children at 50mm eye spacing to say
> some adults with
> > 70mm eye spacing) by adjusting the spacing of the lenses
> to match the
> > spacing of their eyes.
> >
> > George
>
>
> I agree with all you have said here George but I believe
> Michael is wanting his images to be viewed by children with
> 45mm eye spacing as well as adults with wider spacing. When
> using two single viewers side by side. The viewer needs to
> be wider than the film chip and center to center spacing of
> the viewers to get stereo would have to be at least as much
> as the width of a single viewer. To get 45mm lens spacing
> the viewers would require no more width than 45mm and so the
> film chips would have to be less than 45mm wide. So he said
> 40mm.
>
> Of course there is a possibility of doing as is done with
> Holmes viewers using "prismatic lenses". (Another can of
> worms.)
>
> Chuck Holzner
>

Michael

> and b) if anyone one knows where I can buy professional high-end MF viewers that I can mount in a contemporary gallery. I didn't know that everything would get so complicated.


> I can only assume you are new at this.... If so, welcome aboard. I appreciate your verbiage about the "artsy" side of the stereo photography, and the avoidance of trying to become a design engineer for a single public demonstration of your images. We have all been there :-)

Just a little background.... the field of
stereo viewers is the achillies heel of stereo photography. Your
simple question in this thread has demonstrated such. The only reason
you are given these "design" solutions, is because there is no "off the
shelf" viable solution, specially for MF, mainly due to the size of the
images. Obviously there is better hope for 35mm "off the shelf"
solutions. The IPD issue with dealing with kids, to adults, is a huge
issue when dealing with short fl optics. The ONLY solution is, the
lenses must move to match the IPD of the user. Now you need to start
designing stuff :-)


A simple suggestion to escape the kids /
adult issue. Not sure what your budget it, or if you consider this an
experiment possibly for future showings... have you considered cross
viewing the images? You print them and place them side by side, or a
slight toe-in towards each other (to reduce the amount your eyes have to
cross). You can experiment with prints, and if this is acceptable to
you, you can print on back lit transparencies and use lite panel for
back lighting, now you have simulated the stereo viewer experience while
eliminating the human variables. Anyone can walk up to the display and
cross their eyes and fuse the images. Of course, the bigger the
images, the better. 12" square would be a good target.... anyway,
just a thought, considering you are new, not sure if you were aware of
the alternatives. BTW, even printed on Metallic Endurachrome print
paper, and top lighted, the images can be equally stunning as looking
through the viewer. And everyone gets the same look as there is no
optical limitations... at least 90%+ of gen. population can easily free
view with cross eyed layout...

Bill

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck Holzner" <3D4me@...> wrote:
>
>> "DrT (George Themelis)" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So, you can design a viewer with the lenses spaced at the
>>>
>> infinity
>>
>>> separation of the image and have a control to adjust them
>>>
>> by moving one
>>
>>> lens *and* the corresponding mount. This way the viewer
>>>
>> could be used
>>
>>> by any person (from children at 50mm eye spacing to say
>>>
>> some adults with
>>
>>> 70mm eye spacing) by adjusting the spacing of the lenses
>>>
>> to match the
>>
>>> spacing of their eyes.
>>>
>>> George
>>>
>> I agree with all you have said here George but I believe
>> Michael is wanting his images to be viewed by children with
>> 45mm eye spacing as well as adults with wider spacing. When
>> using two single viewers side by side. The viewer needs to
>> be wider than the film chip and center to center spacing of
>> the viewers to get stereo would have to be at least as much
>> as the width of a single viewer. To get 45mm lens spacing
>> the viewers would require no more width than 45mm and so the
>> film chips would have to be less than 45mm wide. So he said
>> 40mm.
>>
>> Of course there is a possibility of doing as is done with
>> Holmes viewers using "prismatic lenses". (Another can of
>> worms.)
>>
>> Chuck Holzner
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Hello Michael,

> b) if anyone one knows where I
> can buy professional high-end MF viewers that I can mount in a
> contemporary gallery

Can't get any higher end than these:

http://www.stereoscopy.com/3d-concepts/viewersexh.html

Scroll down to Muti-slide 3D Exhibit Viewers and the Model C which takes
14 paired medium format slides for images up to 60 x 130mm. Prices from
$3500.00.

Also, have you thought about using the 3DWorld lighted viewers in a set
up like Franklin Londin has done with his "Hooka", "Medusa", and other
viewers:

http://www.blackmariagallery.com/artists/franklin_londin/

http://eecue.com/images_archive/eecue-images-23961-
Franklin_Londin_interactive_display.html

There are also images of his viewers in the photo section of the Photo-3d
Yahho Group under the NSA 2007 folder.

Hope that helps,

David W. Kesner
Boise, Idaho, USA

I wrote:

> Also, have you thought about using the 3DWorld lighted viewers in a set up
> like Franklin Londin has done with his "Hooka", "Medusa", and other
> viewers:

Looks like that last link is bad so here is the viewer on flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eecue/27164425/

Thanks,

David W. Kesner
Boise, Idaho, USA

Had no one mentioned the 3D World rotary viewer? Best I own... is it still available, Dr T??

ron labbe
studio 3D

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "David W. Kesner" wrote:
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> > b) if anyone one knows where I
> > can buy professional high-end MF viewers that I can mount in a
> > contemporary gallery
>
> Can't get any higher end than these:
>
> http://www.stereoscopy.com/3d-concepts/viewersexh.html
>
> Scroll down to Muti-slide 3D Exhibit Viewers and the Model C which takes
> 14 paired medium format slides for images up to 60 x 130mm. Prices from
> $3500.00.
>
> Also, have you thought about using the 3DWorld lighted viewers in a set
> up like Franklin Londin has done with his "Hooka", "Medusa", and other
> viewers:
>
> http://www.blackmariagallery.com/artists/franklin_londin/
>
> http://eecue.com/images_archive/eecue-images-23961-
> Franklin_Londin_interactive_display.html
>
> There are also images of his viewers in the photo section of the Photo-3d
> Yahho Group under the NSA 2007 folder.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> David W. Kesner
> Boise, Idaho, USA
>

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the reply. I suppose I should have said in the original post that, other than building viewers myself (and we have all been down that route in way or another), does anyone know of high-end MF viewers. I know that there are few "off the shelf" solutions for stereo photography. But I am in the UK and maybe more "off the shelf" solutions exist in the USA or the rest of the world than I am aware of. For example I only found out about de Wijs (a Dutch company) when someone introduced them to me. We can't assume that we all know of all the possibilities out there.

Regarding the design engineer side of stereo photography... I have to admit this is something I do not enjoy. Not because it is beyond me but because it takes up so much time and energy, and sucks all the joy out of the artistic side of the medium. As much as possible I like to spend my spare time taking photographs. Stereo photography is weighed down too much by technology and theory as it is. Recently I have even stopped developing my own e6 since the process was not particularly easy or enjoyable. I found that I was not taking photographs since I dreaded having to develop them!

Regarding "off the shelf" solutions, fortunately for both 3D filming and stereo photography they are now appearing. I am a stereographer in the film industry and live-action 3D has struggled due to the constraints that the technology (or the lack of it) has placed on it. Until very recently, 3D filming was very similar to stereo photography; You had to design and build your own rig. They always had their limitations and often could never fulfill the requirements needed. But professional mirror boxes are now produced and small 2k and 4k digital cameras such as the SI-2k and Reds have made life much easier. (And more dedicated "off the shelf" solutions are just around the corner.) The same has happened with stereo photography... the TL-120 came along and now even a digital 3D point and click.

I am very interested in knowing more about other stereo photographers. Other than Dr T and Steve Berezin whom I have ordered equipment from in the past, I don't know much about other stereo photographers. More recently I have come across John Thurston's work on his website. (Having been brought up as a child in snowy northern Canada, his images of Alaska are rather poignant.) So I would love to know more about all you guys here. You have all been very kind to help me out.

Michael

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
>
> Michael
>
>
> > and b) if anyone one knows where I can buy professional high-end MF viewers that I can mount in a contemporary gallery. I didn't know that everything would get so complicated.
>
>
> > I can only assume you are new at this.... If so, welcome aboard. I appreciate your verbiage about the "artsy" side of the stereo photography, and the avoidance of trying to become a design engineer for a single public demonstration of your images. We have all been there :-)
> Just a little background.... the field of
> stereo viewers is the achillies heel of stereo photography. Your
> simple question in this thread has demonstrated such. The only reason
> you are given these "design" solutions, is because there is no "off the
> shelf" viable solution, specially for MF, mainly due to the size of the
> images. Obviously there is better hope for 35mm "off the shelf"
> solutions. The IPD issue with dealing with kids, to adults, is a huge
> issue when dealing with short fl optics. The ONLY solution is, the
> lenses must move to match the IPD of the user. Now you need to start
> designing stuff :-)
>
>
> A simple suggestion to escape the kids /
> adult issue. Not sure what your budget it, or if you consider this an
> experiment possibly for future showings... have you considered cross
> viewing the images? You print them and place them side by side, or a
> slight toe-in towards each other (to reduce the amount your eyes have to
> cross). You can experiment with prints, and if this is acceptable to
> you, you can print on back lit transparencies and use lite panel for
> back lighting, now you have simulated the stereo viewer experience while
> eliminating the human variables. Anyone can walk up to the display and
> cross their eyes and fuse the images. Of course, the bigger the
> images, the better. 12" square would be a good target.... anyway,
> just a thought, considering you are new, not sure if you were aware of
> the alternatives. BTW, even printed on Metallic Endurachrome print
> paper, and top lighted, the images can be equally stunning as looking
> through the viewer. And everyone gets the same look as there is no
> optical limitations... at least 90%+ of gen. population can easily free
> view with cross eyed layout...
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck Holzner" <3D4me@> wrote:
> >
> >> "DrT (George Themelis)" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> So, you can design a viewer with the lenses spaced at the
> >>>
> >> infinity
> >>
> >>> separation of the image and have a control to adjust them
> >>>
> >> by moving one
> >>
> >>> lens *and* the corresponding mount. This way the viewer
> >>>
> >> could be used
> >>
> >>> by any person (from children at 50mm eye spacing to say
> >>>
> >> some adults with
> >>
> >>> 70mm eye spacing) by adjusting the spacing of the lenses
> >>>
> >> to match the
> >>
> >>> spacing of their eyes.
> >>>
> >>> George
> >>>
> >> I agree with all you have said here George but I believe
> >> Michael is wanting his images to be viewed by children with
> >> 45mm eye spacing as well as adults with wider spacing. When
> >> using two single viewers side by side. The viewer needs to
> >> be wider than the film chip and center to center spacing of
> >> the viewers to get stereo would have to be at least as much
> >> as the width of a single viewer. To get 45mm lens spacing
> >> the viewers would require no more width than 45mm and so the
> >> film chips would have to be less than 45mm wide. So he said
> >> 40mm.
> >>
> >> Of course there is a possibility of doing as is done with
> >> Holmes viewers using "prismatic lenses". (Another can of
> >> worms.)
> >>
> >> Chuck Holzner
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi Ron,

The 3D World rotary viewer is too "plastic"... not really suited for a gallery. And the multi-image rotary style is not necessary. But I would love to have one for showing images to visitors!

Michael

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "studio3_d" wrote:
>
> Had no one mentioned the 3D World rotary viewer? Best I own... is it still available, Dr T??
>
> ron labbe
> studio 3D
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "David W. Kesner" wrote:
> >
> > Hello Michael,
> >
> > > b) if anyone one knows where I
> > > can buy professional high-end MF viewers that I can mount in a
> > > contemporary gallery
> >
> > Can't get any higher end than these:
> >
> > http://www.stereoscopy.com/3d-concepts/viewersexh.html
> >
> > Scroll down to Muti-slide 3D Exhibit Viewers and the Model C which takes
> > 14 paired medium format slides for images up to 60 x 130mm. Prices from
> > $3500.00.
> >
> > Also, have you thought about using the 3DWorld lighted viewers in a set
> > up like Franklin Londin has done with his "Hooka", "Medusa", and other
> > viewers:
> >
> > http://www.blackmariagallery.com/artists/franklin_londin/
> >
> > http://eecue.com/images_archive/eecue-images-23961-
> > Franklin_Londin_interactive_display.html
> >
> > There are also images of his viewers in the photo section of the Photo-3d
> > Yahho Group under the NSA 2007 folder.
> >
> > Hope that helps,
> >
> > David W. Kesner
> > Boise, Idaho, USA
> >
>

Hi David,

Yes, Franklin Londin's works looks very exciting and interesting. What did he actually show in the stereos? Did you get the chance to see any of the exhibits? I know of 3D-concepts excellent viewers. Sadly I don't need a rotary multi-image viewer. Pity they don't also make a single image MF viewer in metal as well.

Thanks anyway!
Michael

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "David W. Kesner" wrote:
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> > b) if anyone one knows where I
> > can buy professional high-end MF viewers that I can mount in a
> > contemporary gallery
>
> Can't get any higher end than these:
>
> http://www.stereoscopy.com/3d-concepts/viewersexh.html
>
> Scroll down to Muti-slide 3D Exhibit Viewers and the Model C which takes
> 14 paired medium format slides for images up to 60 x 130mm. Prices from
> $3500.00.
>
> Also, have you thought about using the 3DWorld lighted viewers in a set
> up like Franklin Londin has done with his "Hooka", "Medusa", and other
> viewers:
>
> http://www.blackmariagallery.com/artists/franklin_londin/
>
> http://eecue.com/images_archive/eecue-images-23961-
> Franklin_Londin_interactive_display.html
>
> There are also images of his viewers in the photo section of the Photo-3d
> Yahho Group under the NSA 2007 folder.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> David W. Kesner
> Boise, Idaho, USA
>

Hello Michael,

> Yes, Franklin Londin's works looks very exciting and interesting. What did
> he actually show in the stereos?

A variety of images. Different for each installation I am sure.

> Did you get the chance to see any of the exhibits?

Yes. I was the chair of the joint 2007 NSA Convention and ISU Congress
with John Hart (of Colorado) as my Art Gallery director (the gallery was
totally John's idea from the start). This was the first time that a full
featured stereo art gallery had ever been done and John did an amazing
job of organizing it and getting the leading stereo artists from all over
the world to participate. Franklin was one of those people. His Medusa
viewer was very well received not only by the stereo communitty, but by
the general public, many of whom were seeing stereo for the very first
time.

Sam Smith was another artist that participated. He hand built a medium
format stereo slide display that I now own. It is a three sided black pvc
pipe stand with three viewers that slide along a vertical path of back-
lit images. Sam made the whole thing, including the viewers. It is
currently not assembled, but I could put it together and take some images
of it if you are interested.

Boris Starosta, another really famous stereo artist, has done art gallery
displays with medium format images. Most of these have tended to be in
the erotic genre, with one viewer being placed in a nude female manikin.
It necessitated that you become, how do you say "intimate" with the
display to see the view. I believe this was for the Seattle Erotic Arts
Festival.

Hope that helps,

David W. Kesner
Boise, Idaho, USA

Hi Michael

>
> Thanks for the reply. I suppose I should have said in the original post that, other than building viewers myself (and we have all been down that route in way or another), does anyone know of high-end MF viewers.

No.... that is why everyone starts hacking
things together... the 3dWorld lighted viewer is the by far the closest
thing we have ever seen to an "off the shelf" good MF viewer. The
Saturn was the other higher end MF viewer, but I don't think Alan stocks
these any longer. I have one if you want to buy one.... I also have a
DeWijs if your interested in that one :-) I have designed and built
my own very high end viewers....but they are prototypes, far from ever
being commercialized.... Optical stereo viewers, beyond the common
doublet, can be quite complex opto mechanical products....

> I know that there are few "off the shelf" solutions for stereo photography. But I am in the UK and maybe more "off the shelf" solutions exist in the USA or the rest of the world than I am aware of.

If you find anything, be sure
to let us know!!

> Regarding the design engineer side of stereo photography... I have to admit this is something I do not enjoy. Not because it is beyond me but because it takes up so much time and energy, and sucks all the joy out of the artistic side of the medium.

I think most everyone on this list shares this exact
sentiment .... While the capture side has solutions, the viewing side
is very limited.... at least when it comes to viewing "out of camera"
film....



produced and small 2k and 4k digital cameras such as the SI-2k and Reds
have made life much easier. (And more dedicated "off the shelf"
solutions are just around the corner.) The same has happened with stereo
photography... the TL-120 came along and now even a digital 3D point and
click.


Since Cine 3d has the benefits of huge
dollars on the viewing end, it makes sense that rigs like RED will
continue to push the envelope in capture.... of course, the RED will
capture stills as well...but with no market for still viewing, at least
from enthusiast, I doubt we will ever see a resurgence of viewers for
stills..... at best, it will be on the PC end in terms of ANA and
polarized monitors...


I have been a stereo shooter for
quite some time... 35mm and MF, as well as Large Format... I have
experimented with a lot.... and also did a lot of optics design, viewer
design, etc. as you say, its gets old.... we all want prefer the
shooting end...

Bill

Okay... thanks Bill. I agree with all that you said... It tallies with my thinking exactly. I'll keep my eyes peeled for new MF viewers. De Wijs would make them if there were enough interest. But until then I will continue to use super slides with the de Wijs viewers I own. Over and out from me. Michael

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
>
> Hi Michael
> >
> > Thanks for the reply. I suppose I should have said in the original post that, other than building viewers myself (and we have all been down that route in way or another), does anyone know of high-end MF viewers.
> No.... that is why everyone starts hacking
> things together... the 3dWorld lighted viewer is the by far the closest
> thing we have ever seen to an "off the shelf" good MF viewer. The
> Saturn was the other higher end MF viewer, but I don't think Alan stocks
> these any longer. I have one if you want to buy one.... I also have a
> DeWijs if your interested in that one :-) I have designed and built
> my own very high end viewers....but they are prototypes, far from ever
> being commercialized.... Optical stereo viewers, beyond the common
> doublet, can be quite complex opto mechanical products....
>
>
>
> > I know that there are few "off the shelf" solutions for stereo photography. But I am in the UK and maybe more "off the shelf" solutions exist in the USA or the rest of the world than I am aware of.
>
> If you find anything, be sure
> to let us know!!
>
>
>
>
> > Regarding the design engineer side of stereo photography... I have to admit this is something I do not enjoy. Not because it is beyond me but because it takes up so much time and energy, and sucks all the joy out of the artistic side of the medium.
>
> I think most everyone on this list shares this exact
> sentiment .... While the capture side has solutions, the viewing side
> is very limited.... at least when it comes to viewing "out of camera"
> film....
>
>
>
> produced and small 2k and 4k digital cameras such as the SI-2k and Reds
> have made life much easier. (And more dedicated "off the shelf"
> solutions are just around the corner.) The same has happened with stereo
> photography... the TL-120 came along and now even a digital 3D point and
> click.
>
>
> Since Cine 3d has the benefits of huge
> dollars on the viewing end, it makes sense that rigs like RED will
> continue to push the envelope in capture.... of course, the RED will
> capture stills as well...but with no market for still viewing, at least
> from enthusiast, I doubt we will ever see a resurgence of viewers for
> stills..... at best, it will be on the PC end in terms of ANA and
> polarized monitors...
>
>
> I have been a stereo shooter for
> quite some time... 35mm and MF, as well as Large Format... I have
> experimented with a lot.... and also did a lot of optics design, viewer
> design, etc. as you say, its gets old.... we all want prefer the
> shooting end...
>
> Bill
>

> Okay... thanks Bill. I agree with all that you said... It tallies with my thinking exactly. I'll keep my eyes peeled for new MF viewers. De Wijs would make them if there were enough interest.

Heck, I could too.... I own the finest
optics ever made for film based stereo viewers.... (5 years worth of
development / prototypes) but the cost to turn a quality viewer into
production is so expensive, it would never make economic sense for the
few sales the enthusiast market would generate... so for now, the
solutions you have on the table is about the best the market has to
offer... keep us posted with your showings, and pursuits, its the type
of threads we all like to read....


Bill

> But until then I will continue to use super slides with the de Wijs viewers I own. Over and out from me. Michael
>
>
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
>
>> Hi Michael
>>
>>> Thanks for the reply. I suppose I should have said in the original post that, other than building viewers myself (and we have all been down that route in way or another), does anyone know of high-end MF viewers.
>>>
>> No.... that is why everyone starts hacking
>> things together... the 3dWorld lighted viewer is the by far the closest
>> thing we have ever seen to an "off the shelf" good MF viewer. The
>> Saturn was the other higher end MF viewer, but I don't think Alan stocks
>> these any longer. I have one if you want to buy one.... I also have a
>> DeWijs if your interested in that one :-) I have designed and built
>> my own very high end viewers....but they are prototypes, far from ever
>> being commercialized.... Optical stereo viewers, beyond the common
>> doublet, can be quite complex opto mechanical products....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I know that there are few "off the shelf" solutions for stereo photography. But I am in the UK and maybe more "off the shelf" solutions exist in the USA or the rest of the world than I am aware of.
>>>
>> If you find anything, be sure
>> to let us know!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Regarding the design engineer side of stereo photography... I have to admit this is something I do not enjoy. Not because it is beyond me but because it takes up so much time and energy, and sucks all the joy out of the artistic side of the medium.
>>>
>> I think most everyone on this list shares this exact
>> sentiment .... While the capture side has solutions, the viewing side
>> is very limited.... at least when it comes to viewing "out of camera"
>> film....
>>
>>
>>
>> produced and small 2k and 4k digital cameras such as the SI-2k and Reds
>> have made life much easier. (And more dedicated "off the shelf"
>> solutions are just around the corner.) The same has happened with stereo
>> photography... the TL-120 came along and now even a digital 3D point and
>> click.
>>
>>
>> Since Cine 3d has the benefits of huge
>> dollars on the viewing end, it makes sense that rigs like RED will
>> continue to push the envelope in capture.... of course, the RED will
>> capture stills as well...but with no market for still viewing, at least
>> from enthusiast, I doubt we will ever see a resurgence of viewers for
>> stills..... at best, it will be on the PC end in terms of ANA and
>> polarized monitors...
>>
>>
>> I have been a stereo shooter for
>> quite some time... 35mm and MF, as well as Large Format... I have
>> experimented with a lot.... and also did a lot of optics design, viewer
>> design, etc. as you say, its gets old.... we all want prefer the
>> shooting end...
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>
>
>
>