I am not aware that anyone has asserted that yesterdays lenses are
better than today's lenses. I don't appreciate the on going distortion
of what has been said by those of us that still believe that some of the
older lenses perform adequately well.

My belief is that the 'medium', (film), is the critical factor holding
back any quality improvements in 3d slide viewing, NOT the sharpness of
the taking lenses or of the viewer lenses being used.

My past experiences makes me believe that 1950's Zeiss-Tessar,
Voigtlander Skopar, Heliar, and Agfa Solinar lenses, plus the f/2.8
lenses on Realist cameras, produce more resolution at working f/stops,
f/5.6 to f/11, than any currently available color slide film being sold
today, is capable of showing. How is one able to take advantage of any
increased resolution, if the film will not record it ? Mike Davis, who
knows a lot about high resolution 3d photography, once suggested that 5
line pairs per mm was the maximum resolution visible to the unaided
human eye. Based on this number, the max resolution visible with a De
Wjis viewer would be less than 30 lp/mm. The number for a red button
viewer would be about 35 lp/mm.What advantage is gained by having higher
resolution if it can't be seen? Every so often, when viewing folio
slides, I have been unable distinguish the Spud slides from the TL-120
slides, even though the max Spud resolution achievable is, only, about
30 lp/mm, whereas the TL-120, with its modern, 7 element taking lenses
is capable of showing up to almost 60 lp/mm. The highest resolution I
have ever seen on Velvia film is 56 lp/mm, using a 100X microscope.

About 5 weeks ago, I read, "...shooting at 1/2000th of a second in
stereo...has produced the best images of any format I have ever shot".
I was amazed, considering the fact that all stereo formats use the same
film emulsions, (35mm and 120), and are magnified by differing amounts,
with the 35mm images receiving the most magnification, about 6X while
the MF only receives about 3.5X, making it difficult for me to to
believe that the 35mm format image could be superior to the same image
derived in a larger format.

As regards to my 'immersion' MF viewer, it has caused me to not worry
about shooting 'ortho', as I now consider it to be a pointless quest,
after seeing 'normal' views improved, IMO, in my 'immersion', WA MF
viewer.

I was disappointed that I did not have my 'immersion' viewer to view the
extraordinarily sharp MF slides from Dale Walsh, and Dorothy Mldanka
that were in the recent, John Thurston MF folio.



like my 45mm view of 3d images