Conversations

Photos

Files

All groups

About

<< Previous Thread Immersion/ortho Next Thread >>

Subject: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-12 12:17:27
From: Chuck Holzner

I was looking through my copy of STEREO CAMERAS USING FILM by Werner Weiser and reviewed the
description of the LEEP LC-2002 stereo camera. It is just too bad that the designer of this camera
ran out of funds before he could finish the project and get this unique camera into production. No
doubt he wanted to produce stereo views with “immersion”. (Maybe I should have used capital letters
here.)

There is no mention of the viewer that was to go with the LEEP but with lenses to match the camera
FL of 39mm, we can count on “immersion”. I have never seen the camera, the book says that only 3
prototypes were made. I remember Boris Starosta saying that he saw a LEEP view in a LEEP viewer and
was very impressed. I wish I had been there.

Those who know me know that I am fond of “Ortho” viewing. I want my views to look as real as I can
get them. One of the requirements for an “ortho” view is that the viewer FL match the camera
taking lens FL. It would be great if the FL was also short enough to give a rather wide view to add
“immersion” to the view.

I once added elements to a Kodaslide II viewer to give it 35mm lenses so I could go “ortho” with the
Realist format cameras. The only other 35mm FL Realist viewer I had ever seen was a “Gold Button”
but the lenses in it left much to be desired.

My 35mm Kodaslide II worked well especially with my double depth slides, putting me closer to the
window by a factor of two. Problem was, I was seeing the grain much larger due to the extra
magnification and could not see more detail because it just wasn’t there. At that time Provia 100
was the finest color slide film I could use.

I went to MF mostly because I could shoot and view “Ortho” with it using cameras and viewers
available. For the most immersion I went with a 75mm FL Sputnik and not 80mm that was also
considered standard on other MF cameras. I bought an Allan Lewis Saturn viewer kit with 78mm lenses.
(He had recently run out of surplus 75mm lenses). Using a larger square of film with less
magnification reduced the apparent grain size and made for better detail in the views.

Double depth with the Sputnik camera was not good as the tightest F stop was F22 and DOF ran out
before you could get from infinity in to 2 meters even though the max. allowed OFD on MF was
considered to be 2.8mm, which was more than needed to get closer than 2 meters with the 75mm lenses.

Luckily I had a Sput that could be set tighter than F/22 simply by pushing the F stop adjustment
past F/22 to what seemed to be about F/32 (half the diameter of F/16). I soon found that I could use
F/32 to get 3mm OFD on the film with good focus all the way in to about 5.5 feet. Since the Saturn
has the interocular fixed at 65mm (or very close) and the mounts have the apertures set at 62 mm
spacing, I could mount with 3mm OFD without modifying the mounts and use them in my Saturn viewer.

Then at one of the NSA conventions I saw a Saturn owned by Dale Yingst, that he had just bought from
Allen Lewis, that had additional elements in it, changing the FL from 78mm to what I think was 58mm.
I tried several of my slides in it and was impressed. Paul Talbot of RMM who was the dealer for the
Saturn had seen it and didn’t think it was good enough, it was only a prototype, and it never got on
his site as an option for sale.

Recently I bought a Saturn Kit without usable lenses. Called Edmond who had made the original lenses
and found that they did not make them anymore. A long story, but I bought 2 each 40mm diameter 60mm
FL lenses. They are smaller than the viewer mounting holes (46mm) so I had to bush them. I now have
a Saturn with 60mm FL lenses. Makes my views look bigger and more “immersive” but I can still see
the frame edges. I do not have lenses on my Sput to match them so I get some depth distortion, not
“Ortho”, but with most slides it is not noticeable.

Had 3D-World designed their MF camera with taking lenses FL 50 to 60mm I would own one now but they
did not. John Thurston has put 55mm lenses on one of his and now Don Lopp has made a viewer with a
rather short FL. No doubt one could be made with 55mm FL. It seems that it is possible to get
“ortho” and “immersion” both with an acceptable level of distortion. I have yet to see the camera,
slides from it, or the viewer to be sure. No doubt it needs to be perfected before film goes away.
:) Maybe not a giant LEEP but a good jump.

Chuck Holzner

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-12 13:40:08
From: JR

One of the neat things about MF is that it is the largest format that will allow a camera lens spacing and viewer lens spacing to be the same for a normal stereo base. Thus it is possible to build a camera (or use a camera with interchangeable lens boards) and a viewer that have the same lenses. If you have interchangeable roll film backs you can remove the backs, put a light source behind it, and your camera becomes a viewer with perfect ortho stereo viewing, since you are viewing through the same lenses that shot the pictures. A 6 x 12 panoramic back could possibly be converted for this use, by replacing the single superwide lens with a pair of moderately wide angle lenses and adding a septum.

stereoscope3d@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-12 14:15:57
From: Bill G

On 10/12/2011 12:39 PM, JR wrote:

>
> One of the neat things about MF is that it is the largest format that will allow a
> camera lens spacing and viewer lens spacing to be the same for a normal stereo base.
> Thus it is possible to build a camera (or use a camera with interchangeable lens boards)
> and a viewer that have the same lenses. If you have interchangeable roll film backs you
> can remove the backs, put a light source behind it, and your camera becomes a viewer
> with perfect ortho stereo viewing, since you are viewing through the same lenses that
> shot the pictures. A 6 x 12 panoramic back could possibly be converted for this use, by
> replacing the single superwide lens with a pair of moderately wide angle lenses and
> adding a septum.
>

Ya mean like this? I started making them in 03

http://i.pbase.com/o6/25/583725/1/108505842.dezoQ3Ld.Camera8027.jpg

Bill

>
> JR
>
>
> stereoscope3d@gmail.com stereoscope3d@gmail.com>
>
>
>

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-12 14:28:41
From: John Rowe

Ooo la la, I want me one of those!

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill G
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:15 PM
To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MF3D-group] Immersion/ortho

On 10/12/2011 12:39 PM, JR wrote:
>
> One of the neat things about MF is that it is the largest format that will
> allow a
> camera lens spacing and viewer lens spacing to be the same for a normal
> stereo base.
> Thus it is possible to build a camera (or use a camera with
> interchangeable lens boards)
> and a viewer that have the same lenses. If you have interchangeable roll
> film backs you
> can remove the backs, put a light source behind it, and your camera
> becomes a viewer
> with perfect ortho stereo viewing, since you are viewing through the same
> lenses that
> shot the pictures. A 6 x 12 panoramic back could possibly be converted for
> this use, by
> replacing the single superwide lens with a pair of moderately wide angle
> lenses and
> adding a septum.
>

Ya mean like this? I started making them in 03

http://i.pbase.com/o6/25/583725/1/108505842.dezoQ3Ld.Camera8027.jpg

Bill

>
> JR
>
>
> stereoscope3d@gmail.com stereoscope3d@gmail.com>
>
>
>

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-12 14:43:07
From: bill_in_3d

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck Holzner" <3D4me@...> wrote:

>
> I was looking through my copy of STEREO CAMERAS USING FILM by Werner Weiser and reviewed the description of the LEEP LC-2002 stereo camera.
> There is no mention of the viewer that was to go with the LEEP but with lenses to match the camera FL of 39mm,
> < - snip - >

Chuck -

The intended viewer for the LEEP camera is described at the following site: http://www.leepvr.com/27leepviewer.html

and here: http://www.leepvr.com/37spie1990.html

The basic concept of taking a distorted picture and un-distorting it with complementary optics in the viewer is clever - but I think there would be practical difficulties in getting them to be a good match.

Also, see Bob Aldridge's post on the difficulties of wide angle stereo. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/message/3437

Despite the issues, I wish I could try such a camera / viewer system !

Bill

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-12 14:54:25
From: JR

Very nice. What are the focal lengths, stereo base, image size for each half? Which lenses are you using?

JR

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com> wrote:

On 10/12/2011 12:39 PM, JR wrote:
>
> One of the neat things about MF is that it is the largest format that will allow a
> camera lens spacing and viewer lens spacing to be the same for a normal stereo base.
> Thus it is possible to build a camera (or use a camera with interchangeable lens boards)
> and a viewer that have the same lenses. If you have interchangeable roll film backs you
> can remove the backs, put a light source behind it, and your camera becomes a viewer
> with perfect ortho stereo viewing, since you are viewing through the same lenses that
> shot the pictures. A 6 x 12 panoramic back could possibly be converted for this use, by
> replacing the single superwide lens with a pair of moderately wide angle lenses and
> adding a septum.
>

Ya mean like this? I started making them in 03

http://i.pbase.com/o6/25/583725/1/108505842.dezoQ3Ld.Camera8027.jpg

Bill

>
> JR
>
>
> stereoscope3d@gmail.com stereoscope3d@gmail.com>

>
>
>

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
MF3D-group-digest@yahoogroups.com
MF3D-group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MF3D-group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-12 15:05:42
From: bill_in_3d

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, JR wrote:

>
> Thus it is possible to build a camera (or use a camera
> with interchangeable lens boards) and a viewer that have the same lenses.
> If you have interchangeable roll film backs you can remove the backs, put a
> light source behind it, and your camera becomes a viewer with perfect ortho
> stereo viewing, since you are viewing through the same lenses that shot the
> pictures.
> < - snip - >

Wasn't that camera / lens combination called "Le Glyphoscope" - made by Jules Richard back at the turn of the last century ?

A seemingly clever way to overcome some lens quality issues, but I'm sure there must be a reason it never caught on.

Anyone have any experience with them ? You still see them on EBay for 100-200 dollars.

Bill W

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-12 15:25:00
From: Bill G

Hi JR... thx...

the fl's vary, from 47mm to 150mm.... all Schneider Digitars
the only versions I still have are 47mm, and 80mm, I don't make them anymore... they also
take a 6x17 nose cone, which I have a nice 90mm Rodenstock... you remove the septum... 5
shots stereo, 4 in 6x17 mode...120 only of course...

The format is 56 x 69mm, the lens separation is 72mm...
Since its tripod mounted, and rarely over 1/125th, I fine tune some dual cable releases to
match the shutter releases... sync is quite easy at low shutter speeds....

its the FAST speeds that make the RBT Zeiss IKONS quite unique... 1/2000th was no easy
task for RBT to accomplish
I now shoot mostly all 35mm...

Bill

On 10/12/2011 1:54 PM, JR wrote:
>
> Very nice. What are the focal lengths, stereo base, image size for each half? Which
> lenses are you using?
>
> JR
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com
> bglick@rconnects.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/12/2011 12:39 PM, JR wrote:
> >
> > One of the neat things about MF is that it is the largest format that will allow a
> > camera lens spacing and viewer lens spacing to be the same for a normal stereo base.
> > Thus it is possible to build a camera (or use a camera with interchangeable lens
> boards)
> > and a viewer that have the same lenses. If you have interchangeable roll film
> backs you
> > can remove the backs, put a light source behind it, and your camera becomes a viewer
> > with perfect ortho stereo viewing, since you are viewing through the same lenses that
> > shot the pictures. A 6 x 12 panoramic back could possibly be converted for this
> use, by
> > replacing the single superwide lens with a pair of moderately wide angle lenses and
> > adding a septum.
> >
>
> Ya mean like this? I started making them in 03
>
> http://i.pbase.com/o6/25/583725/1/108505842.dezoQ3Ld.Camera8027.jpg
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> >
> > JR
> >
> >
> > stereoscope3d@gmail.com stereoscope3d@gmail.com>
> stereoscope3d@gmail.com stereoscope3d@gmail.com>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> stereoscope3d@gmail.com stereoscope3d@gmail.com>
>
>
>

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-12 15:44:10
From: Timo

There was a Leep viewer (a 3 station viewer, like in the picture) at
the NSA convention in Grand Rapids Michigan a couple of years ago. It
was definitely an immersive experience, but suffered a bit from
chromatic aberration.

Timo

On 12-Oct-11, at 2:12 PM, Chuck Holzner wrote:

> I was looking through my copy of STEREO CAMERAS USING FILM by Werner
> Weiser and reviewed the
> description of the LEEP LC-2002 stereo camera. It is just too bad
> that the designer of this camera
> ran out of funds before he could finish the project and get this
> unique camera into production. No
> doubt he wanted to produce stereo views with “immersion”. (Maybe I
> should have used capital letters
> here.)
>
> There is no mention of the viewer that was to go with the LEEP but
> with lenses to match the camera
> FL of 39mm, we can count on “immersion”. I have never seen the
> camera, the book says that only 3
> prototypes were made. I remember Boris Starosta saying that he saw a
> LEEP view in a LEEP viewer and
> was very impressed. I wish I had been there.
>
> Chuck Holzner
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-12 17:30:18
From: Bill G

> The basic concept of taking a distorted picture and un-distorting it with complementary
> optics in the viewer is clever - but I think there would be practical difficulties in
> getting them to be a good match.
>

Nearly impossible....as to keep both taking and viewing lenses to hold tolerances tight
enough to prevent a straight line from having the jaggies when being viewed - would create
NASA type tolerance factoring.... where $1M for a prototype is a low budget....

In all the prototyping I have done, I have found the practical limits with modern lens
design technology and glass materials to be in the 50-55 degrees HFOV... about equal to
cinema experience but at higher resolutions and contrast assuming the proper back
lighting. Min., 5 - 6 elements, 2.5 lbs eye and very wide optics, as a loupes width is a
function of its ER and HFOV... in which case, eventually the limiting factor becomes the
lens width exceeds IPD/2.

if you attempt to push the HFOV to 75 deg (still less than IMAX), you start paying a heavy
toll in MTF, distortion and coma. To try and break those barriers, would take a huge
breakthrough in lens design ....and even if it were achieved, it would require 9-12
elements and costs would be higher than the most costly Leica lenses ever made. Partly due
to low volume and tight tolerances. There is some astronomical eyepieces that claim 100
deg AFOV, but once you convert this to HFOV for non round images, it reduces to about 75
degrees....and then, the distortion is non acceptable for 3d viewing, and the size of
these monsters is bigger than a hand grenade. They also not practical, because their
imaging plane inside between the element, only designed for use in a relay system. ER (Eye
Relief) is short by a factor of about 2.5x to allow the eye to swivel for 3d viewing....
and it took this company 10 years to develop this Eyepiece... I have a few, impressive for
their intended purpose, (astronomical use) but not much else...

So the cost effective approach is to use larger images, which now ends the straight
through viewing concept.... and even then, you still have the lens diameter
limitation....all these factors will never be trumped by technology, as they represent the
fundamentals of optics geometry... i.e. the physical limits... sort of like apt.
diffraction limits, or resolution limits.

Finding the sweet spot in fl and film size, makes the concept more palatable. There is
value in going to larger film, as this opens up the opportunity for a very high quality
viewer that uses less sophisticated optics... this is the benefit of longer fl's. I can
reduce the optics to a triplet, but now need some high quality first surface mirrors, and
all the other mechanical features of the viewer, such as IPD adjust, focus adjust,
lighting, etc. You end up with quite a huge contraption, but I can attest, it's the BEST
view possible for enthusiast type pricing. Changing-out big images (6" range), is
cumbersome, in this modern age, we are spoiled by small and fast change-out imagery.

The next step is to eliminate the optics completely as the images get even larger, like
John Hart did with his Mir Scope. This is by far, the MOST cost effective approach for a
large HFOV.... but now you are confronted with VERY large prints, and often not back-lit
(although possible)..... and eye correction is required for most of us over the age of 50
as presbyopia rules our world.... eye glasses take up a lot of valuable space between the
eye lens and the mirror, which is another limiting factor in maximizing HFOV....

Today, we have 3dtv, which also eliminates the optics obstacles (simple polarization is
far from complex optics).... but the reoslution and HFOV issues still loom....but that is
being addressed, and its just a question of time. Soon the UHD 3dtv's will match a 3dWorld
type of MF view.... 4 MP per eye is impressive...and any slight losses in resolution will
be compensated in other areas such as contrast detection as well as, the added
entertainment value of video and sound :-) It seems nothing got trumped in 3d still
capture / viewing since the 50's, now within a few years, it will be trumped similar to
digital trumping film in warp-speed time frame. As always, the best 3dtv will be high
price to start, and then declining prices through time....

thats my take on it.... I hate to see film viewing die out...

Bill

>
> Also, see Bob Aldridge's post on the difficulties of wide angle stereo.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/message/3437
>
> Despite the issues, I wish I could try such a camera / viewer system !
>
> Bill
>
>

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-13 09:14:07
From: studio3_d

I brought the LEEP viewer to NSA... yes, it does suffer from chromatic abberation... The image does surround, and if you don't "look to the sides" it's pretty remarkable. Currently there are 2 working LEEP cameras in the world (owned by David Burder and Duen Yen)- I have Paul Wing's camera, which is no longer working. Not sure if it's worth it to repair at this point!

ron labbe
studio 3D

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "bill_in_3d" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck Holzner" <3D4me@> wrote:
> >
> > I was looking through my copy of STEREO CAMERAS USING FILM by Werner Weiser and reviewed the description of the LEEP LC-2002 stereo camera.
> > There is no mention of the viewer that was to go with the LEEP but with lenses to match the camera FL of 39mm,
> > < - snip - >
>
> Chuck -
>
> The intended viewer for the LEEP camera is described at the following site: http://www.leepvr.com/27leepviewer.html
>
> and here: http://www.leepvr.com/37spie1990.html
>
> The basic concept of taking a distorted picture and un-distorting it with complementary optics in the viewer is clever - but I think there would be practical difficulties in getting them to be a good match.
>
> Also, see Bob Aldridge's post on the difficulties of wide angle stereo. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/message/3437
>
> Despite the issues, I wish I could try such a camera / viewer system !
>
> Bill
>

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-13 14:51:36
From: Don Lopp

On 10/12/11 2:24 PM, Bill G wrote:

> Hi JR... thx...
>
> the fl's vary, from 47mm to 150mm.... all Schneider Digitars
> the only versions I still have are 47mm, and 80mm, I don't make them anymore... they also
> take a 6x17 nose cone, which I have a nice 90mm Rodenstock... you remove the septum... 5
> shots stereo, 4 in 6x17 mode...120 only of course...
>
> The format is 56 x 69mm, the lens separation is 72mm...
> Since its tripod mounted, and rarely over 1/125th, I fine tune some dual cable releases to
> match the shutter releases... sync is quite easy at low shutter speeds....
>
> its the FAST speeds that make the RBT Zeiss IKONS quite unique... 1/2000th was no easy
> task for RBT to accomplish
> I now shoot mostly all 35mm...
>
> Bill

I consider this discussion has gone berserk. Pray tell how does one
view MF 3d slides that are 69mm in width ??? In ortho even?

A disappointed,

DON

>
>
>
> On 10/12/2011 1:54 PM, JR wrote:
>>
>> Very nice. What are the focal lengths, stereo base, image size for each half? Which
>> lenses are you using?
>>
>> JR
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Bill G<bglick@rconnects.com
>> bglick@rconnects.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/2011 12:39 PM, JR wrote:
>> >
>> > One of the neat things about MF is that it is the largest format that will allow a
>> > camera lens spacing and viewer lens spac

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-13 15:02:01
From: Don Lopp

On 10/12/11 4:29 PM, Bill G wrote:

>
>> The basic concept of taking a distorted picture and un-distorting it with complementary
>> optics in the viewer is clever - but I think there would be practical difficulties in
>> getting them to be a good match.
>>
>
> Nearly impossible....as to keep both taking and viewing lenses to hold tolerances tight
> enough to prevent a straight line from having the jaggies when being viewed - would create
> NASA type tolerance factoring.... where $1M for a prototype is a low budget....
>
> In all the prototyping I have done, I have found the practical limits with modern lens
> design technology and glass materials to be in the 50-55 degrees HFOV... about equal to
> cinema experience but at higher resolutions and contrast assuming the proper back
> lighting. Min., 5 - 6 elements, 2.5 lbs eye and very wide optics, as a loupes width is a
> function of its ER and HFOV... in which case, eventually the limiting factor becomes the
> lens width exceeds IPD/2.
>
> if you attempt to push the HFOV to 75 deg (still less than IMAX), you start paying a heavy
> toll in MTF, distortion and coma. To try and break those barriers, would take a huge
> breakthrough in lens design ....and even if it were achieved, it would require 9-12
> elements and costs would be higher than the most costly Leica lenses ever made. Partly due
> to low volume and tight tolerances. There is some astronomical eyepieces that claim 100
> deg AFOV, but once you convert this to HFOV for non round images, it reduces to about 75
> degrees....and then, the distortion is non acceptable for 3d viewing, and the size of
> these monsters is bigger than a hand grenade. They also not practical, because their
> imaging plane inside between the element, only designed for use in a relay system. ER (Eye
> Relief) is short by a factor of about 2.5x to allow the eye to swivel for 3d viewing....
> and it took this company 10 years to develop this Eyepiece... I have a few, impressive for
> their intended purpose, (astronomical use) but not much else...
>
> So the cost effective approach is to use larger images, which now ends the straight
> through viewing concept.... and even then, you still have the lens diameter
> limitation....all these factors will never be trumped by technology, as they represent the
> fundamentals of optics geometry... i.e. the physical limits... sort of like apt.
> diffraction limits, or resolution limits.
>
> Finding the sweet spot in fl and film size, makes the concept more palatable. There is
> value in going to larger film, as this opens up the opportunity for a very high quality
> viewer that uses less sophisticated optics... this is the benefit of longer fl's. I can
> reduce the optics to a triplet, but now need some high quality first surface mirrors, and
> all the other mechanical features of the viewer, such as IPD adjust, focus adjust,
> lighting, etc. You end up with quite a huge contraption, but I can attest, it's the BEST
> view possible for enthusiast type pricing. Changing-out big images (6" range), is
> cumbersome, in this modern age, we are spoiled by small and fast change-out imagery.
>
> The next step is to eliminate the optics completely as the images get even larger, like
> John Hart did with his Mir Scope. This is by far, the MOST cost effective approach for a
> large HFOV.... but now you are confronted with VERY large prints, and often not back-lit
> (although possible)..... and eye correction is required for most of us over the age of 50
> as presbyopia rules our world.... eye glasses take up a lot of valuable space between the
> eye lens and the mirror, which is another limiting factor in maximizing HFOV....
>
> Today, we have 3dtv, which also eliminates the optics obstacles (simple polarization is
> far from complex optics).... but the reoslution and HFOV issues still loom....but that is
> being addressed, and its just a question of time. Soon the UHD 3dtv's will match a 3dWorld
> type of MF view.... 4 MP per eye is impressive...and any slight losses in resolution will
> be compensated in other areas such as contrast detection as well as, the added
> entertainment value of video and sound :-) It seems nothing got trumped in 3d still
> capture / viewing since the 50's, now within a few years, it will be trumped similar to
> digital trumping film in warp-speed time frame. As always, the best 3dtv will be high
> price to start, and then declining prices through time....
>
> thats my take on it.... I hate to see film viewing die out...
>
> Bill

IMO, Bill has not presented any useful information in the above rant. By
not using any magnification, he has restricted us to viewing low
resolution 3d images, containing resolution numbers of 5 line pairs per
mm or less. What a deal!

DON

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-13 15:38:23
From: Bill G

Don

> IMO, Bill has not presented any useful information in the above rant.

I am sorry you did not understand it.... I took up a lot of
bandwidth to make it as clear as possible....

> By not using any magnification, he has restricted us to viewing low
> resolution 3d images, containing resolution numbers of 5 line pairs per
> mm or less. What a deal!

Don, the resolution that lands on retina is a function of both the
resolution scale (such as lp/mm) x the width of the image being viewed..... the greatest
potential for MAX. retinal resolution while decreasing optical complexity, is by
increasing image sizes.... as I mentioned, you really need to read some of optical
references I have suggested many times in the past. I don't mind constructive criticism,
but before you criticize something, you need to understand it...

Regards
Bill

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-13 15:41:49
From: Bill G

> I consider this discussion has gone berserk. Pray tell how does one view MF 3d slides

that are 69mm in width ??? In ortho even? A disappointed, DON

Again, I am very sorry you are disappointed.... If I
offered you a new 3d camera for free, it would disappoint you.... there is a reoccurring
theme here. How to view ortho? through a loupe/mirror system, scan and re-size? Lots
of options Don...not everyone does 3d your way...

your 3d pal
Bill G

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-13 16:17:17
From: JR

Why does a 69mm width preclude ortho viewing? It would seem that there are several ways that this could be accomplished. The Wheatstone single-fold (of the light path) configuration would be one; others could have used double-folding (four mirrors or prisms), to keep the slides side-by-side if that were a requirement, or even lateral shifting with achromatic wedge prisms.

The old time stereo cards had images that typically were wider than 69mm (and many of these were contact-printed from the camera negatives), and they used the principle of offset lens sections in the viewers to effect a shift in lateral point-of-view similar to that of a wedge prism (an offset lens optically does the same thing as an inline lens with a wedge prism). Most of these (stereo card images) likely were being viewed with lenses of different focal lengths than the camera lenses that originally formed the images, but if they had been the same, would these not have been ortho? And, if the stereoscopic point-of-view is maintained through whatever optical system is used for viewing, is ortho really that all-important a consideration?

JR

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com> wrote:

> I consider this discussion has gone berserk. Pray tell how does one view MF 3d slides
that are 69mm in width ??? In ortho even? A disappointed, DON

Again, I am very sorry you are disappointed.... If I
offered you a new 3d camera for free, it would disappoint you.... there is a reoccurring
theme here. How to view ortho? through a loupe/mirror system, scan and re-size? Lots
of options Don...not everyone does 3d your way...

your 3d pal
Bill G

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
MF3D-group-digest@yahoogroups.com
MF3D-group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MF3D-group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-13 17:00:55
From: Don Lopp

On 10/13/11 2:38 PM, Bill G wrote:

>
>
> Don
>> IMO, Bill has not presented any useful information in the above rant.
>
> I am sorry you did not understand it.... I took up a lot of
> bandwidth to make it as clear as possible....

Not clear to me. How is one able to see a resolution higher than 5 line
pairs per mm, without external magnification. I realize that most on
this list do not have the slightest idea as to what 5 lp/mm looks like,
but it is quite small. If I blow up a digital image to be 10 feet wide,
I can only see the increased resolution available by moving closer to
the image, which precludes me from seeing the whole image in 3d. As I
have asked more than once, what is the advantage of having 3d images
that contain high resolution images that can not be seen by an unaided
eye, which is the case when mirrors are utilized? We have seen your
previous rant on regarding 3d before. Please tell us something new.

Is my previous statement, below, in error ? Where and how?

>> By not using any magnification, he has restricted us to viewing low
>> resolution 3d images, containing resolution numbers of 5 line pairs per
>> mm or less. What a deal!
>

Bill wrote: ...as I mentioned, you really need to read some of optical

> references I have suggested many times in the past. I don't mind constructive criticism,
> but before you criticize something, you need to understand it...

I did not just fall off of a peach truck.

DON

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-13 17:13:48
From: Don Lopp

On 10/13/11 2:41 PM, Bill G wrote:

> > I consider this discussion has gone berserk. Pray tell how does one view MF 3d slides
> that are 69mm in width ??? In ortho even? A disappointed, DON
>
>
> Again, I am very sorry you are disappointed.... If I
> offered you a new 3d camera for free, it would disappoint you.... there is a reoccurring
> theme here. How to view ortho? through a loupe/mirror system, scan and re-size? Lots
> of options Don...not everyone does 3d your way...

How do you know that I would be disappointed if you offered me a free 3d
camera-? give it a try ? You might be surprised.

How is it possible to view a 3d image, in ortho, taken with a 47mm
lens when the image is 69 mm wide? Through a loupe/ mirror system, scan
and re-size? Houdini ?

DON

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-13 17:57:34
From: Bill G

On 10/13/2011 4:38 PM, Don Lopp wrote:

>
> How is it possible to view a 3d image, in ortho, taken with a 47mm lens when the image
> is 69 mm wide? Through a loupe/ mirror system, scan and re-size? Houdini ?

Don, if you did not comprehend my response, please read JR's
response, we are basically saying the same thing.... maybe his wordsmithing is more to
your liking.... I can't make this any simpler to understand....sorry...

B

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-13 20:11:09
From: imn23dru

Hey, this is like old times! Bill and Don in a lively discussion about ortho viewing. Love it!

Glad you guys are still talking about MF3D. Keep up the good work.

Sam Smith

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/13/2011 4:38 PM, Don Lopp wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > How is it possible to view a 3d image, in ortho, taken with a 47mm lens when the image
> > is 69 mm wide? Through a loupe/ mirror system, scan and re-size? Houdini ?
>
>
> Don, if you did not comprehend my response, please read JR's
> response, we are basically saying the same thing.... maybe his wordsmithing is more to
> your liking.... I can't make this any simpler to understand....sorry...
>
>
> B
>

Subject: Kodak on National News
Date: 2011-10-13 20:38:40
From: Bill G

Unlike old times, Kodak on National News tonight in USA, talking about how to avoid
bankruptcy...the usual scene, retirees in a room, all wondering if their pensions will
evaporate, sounds like GM all over again.... they said, used to be 60k employees just in
Rochester, now 20k worldwide....

Bob, you were ahead of the curve on this one... nice work, well, kind of :-)

> Hey, this is like old times! Bill and Don in a lively discussion about ortho viewing.
> Love it!
>
> Glad you guys are still talking about MF3D. Keep up the good work.
>
>
>
>

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-13 22:58:49
From: Don Lopp

On 10/13/11 4:57 PM, Bill G wrote:

>
>
> On 10/13/2011 4:38 PM, Don Lopp wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>> How is it possible to view a 3d image, in ortho, taken with a 47mm lens when the image
>> is 69 mm wide? Through a loupe/ mirror system, scan and re-size? Houdini ?

I am not aware that either of you explained how a loupe/mirror system
could provide a 3d image in 'ortho', as has been asserted.

Easy questions.

Bill, do you have a pair of 47mm fl loupe's that permits you to view a
3d image pair, each image being 69mm in width ? I doubt it.

Do you have an eye interocular spacing of more than 69mm that would
permit you to have 'ortho', viewing of the 69mm wide stereo images ? I
doubt it.

The word 'ortho' does have a commonly known definition. JR mentioned
prismatic lenses for viewing stereo cards. I do not know of any
prismatic, WA viewing lenses being available to the general public, that
would be suitable for viewing sharp stereo images taken with high
resolution lenses on color transparency film. Wide angle lenses were
not in general use during the hay-day of stereo cards, to the best of my
knowledge. How does one view an angle of view of about 100 degrees, as
is provided by a 47mm fl lens on a film image, 55mm by 69mm wide film
image, when using a mirror system ? Is this a possibility ? I have my
doubts.

Is it possible, to use a 47mm fl loupe with a, " Wheatstone single -fold
(of the lightpath) configuration" ? I have my doubts.

What field of view could be covered by using double folding (4 mirrors
or prisms) or the use of achromatic wedge prisms? Certainly not 60 plus
degrees.

A question was asked, is ortho really - that all important a
consideration ?

The originating email did ask, "HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO VIEW A 3D
IMAGE, IN ORTHO, TAKEN WITH A 47MM LENS WHEN THE IMAGE IS 69MM WIDE ?"

Another easy question, Bill. Do you still believe that standard camera
taking lenses are suitable for use as viewer lenses as you did infer,
today, in an earlier post?

DON

>
>
>

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-13 23:21:43
From: JR

The question was in regard to viewing a 3D image 69mm wide. As I pointed out, stereo card images are usually wider than 69mm and Wheatstone images typically much wider than that. These are usually viewed with lenses that cover the field, stereo cards being seen by a lot of people who usually enjoy the view and do not ask if the images are "ortho". I then asked if ortho was really necessary. I have not heard a response.

JR

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Don Lopp <dlopp@rainier-web.com> wrote:

On 10/13/11 4:57 PM, Bill G wrote:
>
>
> On 10/13/2011 4:38 PM, Don Lopp wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>> How is it possible to view a 3d image, in ortho, taken with a 47mm lens when the image
>> is 69 mm wide? Through a loupe/ mirror system, scan and re-size? Houdini ?

I am not aware that either of you explained how a loupe/mirror system
could provide a 3d image in 'ortho', as has been asserted.

Easy questions.

Bill, do you have a pair of 47mm fl loupe's that permits you to view a
3d image pair, each image being 69mm in width ? I doubt it.

Do you have an eye interocular spacing of more than 69mm that would
permit you to have 'ortho', viewing of the 69mm wide stereo images ? I
doubt it.

The word 'ortho' does have a commonly known definition. JR mentioned
prismatic lenses for viewing stereo cards. I do not know of any
prismatic, WA viewing lenses being available to the general public, that
would be suitable for viewing sharp stereo images taken with high
resolution lenses on color transparency film. Wide angle lenses were
not in general use during the hay-day of stereo cards, to the best of my
knowledge. How does one view an angle of view of about 100 degrees, as
is provided by a 47mm fl lens on a film image, 55mm by 69mm wide film
image, when using a mirror system ? Is this a possibility ? I have my
doubts.

Is it possible, to use a 47mm fl loupe with a, " Wheatstone single -fold
(of the lightpath) configuration" ? I have my doubts.

What field of view could be covered by using double folding (4 mirrors
or prisms) or the use of achromatic wedge prisms? Certainly not 60 plus
degrees.

A question was asked, is ortho really - that all important a
consideration ?

The originating email did ask, "HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO VIEW A 3D
IMAGE, IN ORTHO, TAKEN WITH A 47MM LENS WHEN THE IMAGE IS 69MM WIDE ?"

Another easy question, Bill. Do you still believe that standard camera
taking lenses are suitable for use as viewer lenses as you did infer,
today, in an earlier post?

DON

>
>
>

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
MF3D-group-digest@yahoogroups.com
MF3D-group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MF3D-group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

Subject: Keeping up the good work [was: Immersion/ortho]
Date: 2011-10-13 23:23:57
From: John Thurston

On 10/13/2011 6:11 PM, imn23dru wrote:

> Hey, this is like old times! Bill and Don in a lively discussion about ortho viewing. Love it!
>
> Glad you guys are still talking about MF3D. Keep up the good work.

Sam, long time no hear from. Are you shooting any these days?

I sent my first couple rolls off to DR5 last week. I'm
anxious to see the results. I'm almost afraid I'm going to
like the results. Next thing ya know I'll be buying tanks and
timers :)
________________________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-14 09:01:32
From: Bill G

On 10/13/2011 10:23 PM, Don Lopp wrote:

> I am not aware that either of you explained how a loupe/mirror system
> could provide a 3d image in 'ortho', as has been asserted.
>
> Easy questions.

Easy answers..... JR did a good job in a previous post, so I
will let the stand.... my response offered other methods as well, but for some reason, you
are either not reading my responses, or not comprehending them, please re-read....

>
> Bill, do you have a pair of 47mm fl loupe's that permits you to view a
> 3d image pair, each image being 69mm in width ? I doubt it.

Not 47mm, but 50mm, close enough.....yes, I am sure you
doubt it, just like you doubted and tried to convince an audience I did not own the gear I
listed....when I made you an offer for me to prove this for $100 fee, you oddly stopped
communicating....that is not like you Don, you fight to the death on every subject.... so
once again, its no surprise, your default mode is to doubt anything I write.

>
> Do you have an eye interocular spacing of more than 69mm that would
> permit you to have 'ortho', viewing of the 69mm wide stereo images ? I
> doubt it.

Both my post, and JR's addressed how this can be
accomplished if you want to view the 69mm images... to communicate fairly Don, you need
to read what we write vs. asking the same questions over and over when the answers were
already addressed. Also, another 3d member, Greenberg has pictures posted on the web
of a viewer he made that views his 69mm wide images, basic Wheatstone design.... try
googling it Don....

>
> The word 'ortho' does have a commonly known definition. JR mentioned
> prismatic lenses for viewing stereo cards. I do not know of any
> prismatic, WA viewing lenses being available to the general public, that
> would be suitable for viewing sharp stereo images taken with high
> resolution lenses on color transparency film. Wide angle lenses were
> not in general use during the hay-day of stereo cards, to the best of my
> knowledge. How does one view an angle of view of about 100 degrees, as
> is provided by a 47mm fl lens on a film image, 55mm by 69mm wide film
> image, when using a mirror system ? Is this a possibility ? I have my
> doubts.

I would have my doubts also, i.e. viewing 100 degrees HFOV (but
this is another error on your behalf) with any optics Don, I have stated this clearly in
the long post, which you called "a rant"...if you re-read that post, I made these points
crystal clear. However, fortunately 47mm fl on 69mm film is only 72 degrees, not a 100
degrees....you need to re do your math. You can view this close to ortho with slight
corner clipping....

Also, as with all formats, who said you have to view the entire horizontal capture? Is
cropping not an option as well? Have you considered that option.... at times, when the
scene allows, I crop the film down to 55mm wide mounts.... My position is, its better to
record more than you need, vs. less than you need.

>
> Is it possible, to use a 47mm fl loupe with a, " Wheatstone single -fold
> (of the lightpath) configuration" ? I have my doubts.

No, but you can enlarge the film, and keep the final image
ortho.... more than one way to skin a cat Don.... as I keep mentioning, not everyone does
3d your way... the world of digital, since the 90's and film scanning has changed
everything. I have turned many of these 69mm long images into 8x10 film, and view in my
8x10 film viewer, and yes, very close to ortho....

>
> What field of view could be covered by using double folding (4 mirrors
> or prisms)

The best I have been able to accomplish is about 40
degrees with sufficient ER to make a pleasant viewing experience....has any of your
designs done better than this Don? If so, I would be excited to learn how you
accomplished this....

> A question was asked, is ortho really - that all important a consideration ? The

originating email did ask, "HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO VIEW A 3D IMAGE, IN ORTHO, TAKEN WITH A
47MM LENS WHEN THE IMAGE IS 69MM WIDE ?" Another easy question, Bill. Do you still believe
that standard camera taking lenses are suitable for use as viewer lenses as you did infer,
today, in an earlier post? DON

Don, I read your last sentence 5x to make sure I
understood what you were inferring I wrote....and just like you admitted at the start of
this thread, this is another case of your "imagination-gone-wild".... I never once
mentioned using camera lenses for viewing lenses, its an absurd idea, the two applications
have completely different optical goals, its absurd. Again, I can only ask that you
please read what is written, and fully comprehend it before making such ludicrous
accusations... fair enough?

Your 3d pal
Bill

>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-15 08:58:32
From: bill_in_3d

< - snip - >

I never once

> mentioned using camera lenses for viewing lenses, its an absurd idea, the two applications
> have completely different optical goals, its absurd. Again, I can only ask that you
> please read what is written, and fully comprehend it before making such ludicrous
> accusations... fair enough?

>

< - snip - >

Gents,

With respect to the idea of using camera lenses as viewing lenses, it was MYSELF who spoke of it on this thread, based perhaps on a misunderstanding of a prior post. Any absurd, ludicrous foolishness in this idea is mine, all mine, and mine alone.

One member of this group was kind enough to discuss the technical issues with this in a polite and friendly manner in a private communication meant to spare me any embarrassment. I am grateful for his thoughtfulness and think it perfectly exemplifies the spirit that makes this group valuable to all.

I am distressed that what I said has started something approaching a flame war that will discourage people from participating in this group, and potentially get less joy from our common hobby. Some recent postings have had a level of acrimony that risks drowning out the content.

So please remember to be civil and courteous on this group. I ask this as someone who enjoys learning from all of you.

Bill W

PS - there REALLY was a camera sold commercially that used the taking lenses as the viewing lenses - absurd or not

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho
Date: 2011-10-15 09:16:17
From: Bob Aldridge

On 15/10/2011 15:58, bill_in_3d wrote:

PS - there REALLY was a camera sold commercially that used the taking lenses as the viewing lenses - absurd or not

Yes - the Jules Richard Glyphoscope was such a camera. It had simple lenses with te shutters in a plate which could be removed. it also had an adapter which included a ground glass diffuser which could be attached to the back which would hold a transposed slide in place for viewing with the taking lenses...

Jules Richard were the same company that created a number of other exellent viewers and cameras...

Bob Aldridge

Subject: No offense intended...
Date: 2011-10-15 09:57:49
From: Bill G

On 10/15/2011 8:15 AM, Bob Aldridge wrote:

>
> On 15/10/2011 15:58, bill_in_3d wrote:
>
>> PS - there REALLY was a camera sold commercially that used the taking lenses as the
>> viewing lenses - absurd or not
>>
> Yes - the Jules Richard Glyphoscope was such a camera. It had simple lenses with te
> shutters in a plate which could be removed. it also had an adapter which included a
> ground glass diffuser which could be attached to the back which would hold a transposed
> slide in place for viewing with the taking lenses...
>
> Jules Richard were the same company that created a number of other exellent viewers and
> cameras...

Yep, and there was many more I have seen through history, most through stereo
auctions....many were only prototypes. The idea of using the same lens for taking and
viewing is very appealing, and prob. very marketable in its day.... And while I did
mention, the concept is "feasible", my point was, its NOT ideal, as the optical
compromises would be many. The smaller the FOV of the optics, the more feasible the
approach becomes. However, this is in direct conflict with the immersion (wide HFOV) that
everyone craves when viewing 3d....

Bill W.... its possible my words were mis guided... The only position I was repeating over
and over to Don, was, I never endorsed this concept....but Don just kept harping on the
fact I did, and prob. still will.... My guess is, our same first name, further confused Don.

The one thing I learned in my deep journey into optics, is there is NO DUMB QUESTIONS or
suggestions. I marvel how some of the best optical designers in the USA are still
learning, still writing chapters of the books that have never been written, pursue
breakthroughs that seem so obvious to them, but hit the same bottlenecks as others have
probably encountered long before them. I also marvel how a laymen can baffle the optical
engineering community with some great concepts that are a commercial success, this
happened once in the Cine field. So if my wording offending you in anyway, (at the time, I
had no clue if anyone even endorsed this position or not, I just knew I did NOT).... I can
assure you, I had no malicious intent to offend anyone, but regardless, it occurred, so, I
hope you can accept this apology....

Bill G

>
> Bob Aldridge
>

Subject: Re: No offense intended...
Date: 2011-10-15 23:33:08
From: bill_in_3d

<- snip ->

> Bill W.... its possible my words were mis guided...

<- snip ->

>I can
> assure you, I had no malicious intent to offend anyone, but regardless, it occurred, so, I
> hope you can accept this apology....
>

<- snip ->

Thank you, but there was no offense taken and you have nothing to apologize for. I am grateful for what you have to say on this board and I continue to learn from it.

Top periodicals including the Economist and the Washington Post have regular features where experts talk through the issues of the day by presenting opposing points of view. Scientific conferences occasionally do likewise. This method is quite illuminating and if people on this board choose to do the same then I for one am grateful for the chance to listen in.

As an example, I found the discussion on lens matching (back in '06) solved a problem I was having. Everything seemed so clear and straightforward once I had read what you and all the other contributors had to say on the subject.

Bill W

Subject: Re: No offense intended...
Date: 2011-10-16 14:20:22
From: Bill G

HI Bill W

>
> As an example, I found the discussion on lens matching (back in '06) solved a problem I
> was having. Everything seemed so clear and straightforward once I had read what you and
> all the other contributors had to say on the subject.
>

I am curious what problem you solved, and how you solved it.... sure glad someone gets
value from the few posts with useful information. It seems the only active and lengthy
postings on this list have been to badger or carry out non-warranted character
assassinations... IMO, this is what makes all forums fall apart... good contributors run.
Several forums I am on, have some of the best minds their field, but due to unwarranted
badgering, they all stop posting. Badgering and constructive criticism are miles apart...

Bill G

>

Subject: ~
Date: 2011-10-17 20:52:30
From: lattie_smart

Well, since we're talking "Lo-Fi MF Immersion" here, FWIW, I will briefly re-flog my thread topic from last year.

I can slap a MF slide mount on the light table, screw my 10x Lomo Lubots all the way in, press them into the plastic protective sleeve a smidge, line up the view...and ...I'M THERE! :-) Inside the scene! I slide my head/lupes together to scan around inside the tableaux, just as if I were moving my eyes in the real scene.

Yep, it's not super sharp, or contrasty - but neither is my normal vision without glasses. But it's not as bad as you might believe. And it can be a little, uh, *smeary*, if I get carried away. ;-P I don't notice terrible distortion looking at graph paper thru these lupes that close.

Now, Bill G. led me to understand this is largely the result of my Special Super-Power of Lifelong Nearsightedness.
(SPH CYL -1.25 to -1.75 each eye - tho' I see sharp detail when corrected). In fact, my glasses equal kryptonite when I try wearing them during this exercise - FOV is way too removed and graph lines go curvy. So, this won't work for many of you non-mutants out there. ;-)

That said, it's only an occasional diversion for me - just a different way to enjoy the Same Old Slides.

But a pair of Lubots (and crummy nearsightedness) are much more accessibly to me then a LEEP system sitting in a museum case somewhere. (or waiting for affordable 4-8MP 3DTVs....or only reading about Don and John's WA MF viewers!)

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "studio3_d" wrote:
>
> I brought the LEEP viewer to NSA... yes, it does suffer from chromatic abberation... The image does surround, and if you don't "look to the sides" it's pretty remarkable. Currently there are 2 working LEEP cameras in the world (owned by David Burder and Duen Yen)- I have Paul Wing's camera, which is no longer working. Not sure if it's worth it to repair at this point!
>
> ron labbe
> studio 3D
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "bill_in_3d" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck Holzner" <3D4me@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was looking through my copy of STEREO CAMERAS USING FILM by Werner Weiser and reviewed the description of the LEEP LC-2002 stereo camera.
> > > There is no mention of the viewer that was to go with the LEEP but with lenses to match the camera FL of 39mm,
> > > < - snip - >
> >
> > Chuck -
> >
> > The intended viewer for the LEEP camera is described at the following site: http://www.leepvr.com/27leepviewer.html
> >
> > and here: http://www.leepvr.com/37spie1990.html
> >
> > The basic concept of taking a distorted picture and un-distorting it with complementary optics in the viewer is clever - but I think there would be practical difficulties in getting them to be a good match.
> >
> > Also, see Bob Aldridge's post on the difficulties of wide angle stereo. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/message/3437
> >
> > Despite the issues, I wish I could try such a camera / viewer system !
> >
> > Bill
> >
>

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho ,Amazing
Date: 2011-10-18 05:13:08
From: Don Lopp

On 10/12/11 1:15 PM, Bill G wrote:

>
>
> On 10/12/2011 12:39 PM, JR wrote:
>>
>> One of the neat things about MF is that it is the largest format that will allow a
>> camera lens spacing and viewer lens spacing to be the same for a normal stereo base.
>> Thus it is possible to build a camera (or use a camera with interchangeable lens boards)
>> and a viewer that have the same lenses. If you have interchangeable roll film backs you
>> can remove the backs, put a light source behind it, and your camera becomes a viewer
>> with perfect ortho stereo viewing, since you are viewing through the same lenses that
>> shot the pictures. A 6 x 12 panoramic back could possibly be converted for this use, by
>> replacing the single superwide lens with a pair of moderately wide angle lenses and
>> adding a septum.
>> Ya mean like this? I started making them in 03

> http://i.pbase.com/o6/25/583725/1/108505842.dezoQ3Ld.Camera8027.jpg

> Bill

Are we to assume that Bill G. did make the above, cited, "Hi-Rez", MF,
3d camera's, which, apparently, allows one, if they, "put a light
source behind it"...your camera becomes "a viewer with perfect stereo
viewing...". IMO, the camera looks like it was made over seas, (LTD),
with its Super Angulon, f/8.0 WA lenses. I wonder how many were made,
and how many were sold, and the price. The camera does not appear to me
to include a panoramic back.

Strange, as Bill G. did write, a contrary view, on 10/145/11 at 3:10 PM,
PST, "There is many reasons a camera lens would never work as a viewing
lens...".

I am of the opinion that Bill G. did take joint ownership of the
paragraph written by JR, as I do not see any disclaimers by Bill G. of
the contents of JR's paragraph ?.

Amazing,

DON

Subject: Re: Immersion/ortho ,Amazing
Date: 2011-10-18 08:50:25
From: Bill G

On 10/12/2011

The craziness continues.....

> Don Lopp wrote...
> Are we to assume that Bill G. did make the above, cited, "Hi-Rez", MF,
> 3d camera's,

I have them in my possession? Do you know of other
manufacturers of this design? hmmmmmm
And as I have offered you many times in the past, if you are right and I am lying, you
stand to make $500 on your "allegations".... while only standing to loose $100. Yet, no
response on this issue, so just how strong do you stand behind your smear campaign???
:-) That was a rhetorical question in case you didn't grasp it....
As they say, Actions Speak Louder than words, and your actions demonstrating nothing but
the desire to smear a fellow enthusiast.... did I ever do this to you? Did I ever
question anything you mentioned you owned? hmmmmm..... oh well,

> which, apparently, allows one, if they, "put a light
> source behind it"...your camera becomes "a viewer with perfect stereo
> viewing...".

Don, is this something you are wishing for in the design? Is
this something that is stated about how the camera works? Where in the world did this
looney statement come from ????? I am beyond curious.... of course, I expect the
usual.... no response when your absurd assumptions are questioned....

> IMO, the camera looks like it was made over seas, (LTD),
> with its Super Angulon, f/8.0 WA lenses.

I have NEVER produced a camera with Super Angulon lenses
!!!! I stated at least 5x in my posts, I only used Digitar lenses.... do you read
anything written on this forum? If so, why do you continually mis quote and fabricate
things which are not true???

> I wonder how many were made,

about 10 total

> and how many were sold, and the price.

based on the lenses used, between $4.5k and $12k (for multiple
lens units)

> The camera does not appear to me
> to include a panoramic back.

Huh? Are you viewing the right picture? do you see
the length of the back? How can this NOT be a panoramic back??? Really, did you look
at the picture Don???? You are a photographic genius, how can you possibly NOT see the
length of the back...or do the math, two 69mm wide exposure + septum = 143mm wide.... but
when septum removed (as stated over and over in these posts) 169mm wide, or 6x17. Is that
not panoramic? Again, how can you possibly draw these conclusions?

>
> Strange, as Bill G. did write, a contrary view, on 10/145/11 at 3:10 PM,
> PST, "There is many reasons a camera lens would never work as a viewing
> lens...".

ahhhhh, so you actually got one thing right Don, congrats....

>
> I am of the opinion that Bill G. did take joint ownership of the
> paragraph written by JR, as I do not see any disclaimers by Bill G. of
> the contents of JR's paragraph ?.

How about the one you just correctly quoted
previously? :-) Your own quote above, answers your own question???? sheeeesh

Don, the absurdity of your posts are intensifying..... I have gone beyond reasonable
lengths to make things clear, but you are either not reading the posts, not comprehending
them, or not remembering them when you respond, which is why this communications is
bordering on looney......

You obviously do NOT feel strong about your smear campaign, as you state how tight money
was, and I offered you a simple means to make substantial money backing up your smear
campaign, with only a small amount to risk..... but, as always the case, your actions
speak louder than your words.... You ignore the offers, while continuing your smear
campaign. I appears you only goal is to discredit me, smear me, and make false
allegations about me. And you have succeeded meeting your goals.... now, what is the
next crazy position you want to loosely present ???

>
> Amazing,

Amazing is not a strong enough word to describe this thread......

Bill G

>
> DON
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Subject: :Loony Statement, Not from Me
Date: 2011-11-24 16:22:22
From: Don Lopp

On 10-18-2011 Bill G. asked, regarding the statement: {....which,
apparently allows one, if they "put a light source behind it. ....your
camera becomes a,'viewer with perfect stereo viewing...."}. Bill then
asked , "Don is this something you are wishing for in the design? is
this something that is stated about how the camera works? Where in the
world did this looney (sic), statement come from?

Bill G, don't blame me. This loony statement did not come from me. It
came, from an email from JR, on Oct 12, 2011 at 12;39 PM, PST. Thirty
six minutes later, at 10- 12- 2011,m at 1:15 PM, PST, on 10-12-11, Bill
G did post an email, which quoted Jr's email, in its entirety including
the, "loony", "Thus it is possible to build to build a camera put a
light source behind it...your camera becomes a viewer with perfect
stereo viewing...". Bill did not make any comments questioning the
validity of the email from JR.

Bill did, correctly, quote me as saying, "The camera does not appear to
me to include a panoramic back.

Bill then wrote: "Really, are you viewing the right picture? do you see
the length of the back??? Really did you look at the picture Don???
..." do the math, two 69mm wide exposure + septum =143mm wide... but
when the septum removed (as stated in these posts) 169mm wide or 6 x 17.
Is that not panoramic? Again, how can you possibly draw these conclusions?

It was not difficult, the single picture offered, only, a frontal view.
NO camera specifications were included with the picture of the HI-Rez
camera photo. Not having ESP powers, the following questions will,
apparently, remain un-answered to me and to anyone else that is
interested. (1), The camera dimensions. (2) The focal length of the
taking lenses. (3), The camera weight. (4), The spacing between the
taking lenses, which must be at least 72mm. (5), The top shutter synch
speed for flash? (6), Is 220 film capability, an option ? (7), No
information was given about what fl lenses were available for shooting
panoramic images?

Another relative question! Why the name 'Hi Rez', on your custom made MF
camera. The Schneider Optical Co. pdf on Digitar lenses stated that,
"approx", resolution of the medium format Digitar lenses was ,"30 to 50
line pairs per mm. "What is, "Hi Rez", about having a resolution of, "30
to 50 line pairs per mm" ?

3D World was smart enough not to include a panoramic camera capability
in their 3D World stereo camera. 3D World did design their camera to
shoot 6-3d image pairs, per roll of film, contrary to the 5- 3d image
pairs per roll of 120 film, offered by the Hi Rez camera. The potential
accuracy of the view finder, which, in my opinion, is an important
feature when shooting stereo images, I can only guess as to whether it
offered an accurate representation as to a potential stereo image, as I
do not understand how it could provide accurate information for both 3d
and for 6 x 17 panoramic images

The question remains,- Please tell us, MF3d members, how we may view
55mm x 69mm 3d image pairs, in an optical 3d viewer, (costing less than
$10,000), in a near ortho condition, as you have alleged in previous
emails possible ? How about a picture of your, alleged, "custom MF viewer
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

Bill, what is the space between the taking lenses, in mm's, on your
custom MF 3d camera ? Did the customers get their money back because of
the wider than optimum spacing of the taking lenses ? I ask you again,
how can these images can be viewed, in comfort, in an optical viewer,
when the the homologous points are spaced so much more farther apart
than the standard 62mm spacing used by the rest of us, MF 3d shooters,
who use Rolleidoscop, Sputnik and 3D World stereo cameras ? Please no
smoke and mirrors.

I do not understand how even a custom viewer, with custom slide mounts
could overcome the problems caused by having, excessively, widely spaced
camera taking lenses. Maybe this, design flaw explains why the camera
bodies, apparently, are not in general use, in the MF stereo community
today.?

I noticed on the Schneider Optical Digitar pdf , on google, that the
resolution power of the Schneider medium format Digitar lenses was,
"approx. 30 to 50 line pairs per mm" . What a deal, maybe Schneider
Kreuznach is being honest. Of what utility are the high resoloution
claims of C Perez of up to 117 lp/mm on Mamiya 7 lenses, if this high
resolution can't be seen, whereas 30 to 50 lp per mm is apparently,
considered to be good enough ?

Bill wrote: ".. another 3d member, Greenberg has pictures posted on the
web of a viewer he made that views his 69mm wide images, basic
Wheatstone design... try googling it Don."

Why bother, considering that the maximum resolution visible to the naked
eye, using a Wheatstone viewer is about 5 line pairs per mm resolution.
I am not impressed. Use of the Mirscope viewer faces the same problem,
as it offers only images with about 5 lp/mm resolution, to be visible to
the naked eye, which is a problem when mirrors are used.

I was not aware that a Wheatstone design viewer could provide 'Ortho'
views of anything other that contact prints, not 3d slides taken by
MF stereo cameras. Please remember, Bill, the original question was,"How
is it possible to view a 3d image, in ortho, taken with a 47mm lens when
the 3d image is 69mm wide ?" I was not referring to contact 3d images.
Bill, how is it possible to view, in ortho, images that are taken with
47mm fl lenses without using optical magnification of 3d images in the
55mm x 69mm format.?

Bill,,a wrote: "I have turned many of theses 69mm long images into 8 x
10 film, and view in my 8 x 10- film viewer, and yes, very close to
ortho..."

Bill must have come up with a new definition of "ortho" for this to be,
factually possible.

On 9-12-11 Bill wrote: " ....a few people have contacted me off list
andf advised me of the ridiculous smear campaigns you ran against them
in the past". The truth is that I have never run a smear campaign
against any one. The only person I had a problem with, was John Toeppen,
w3ho did make a claim that he had built a 35mm slide viewer, udsing a
pair of 50mm, f/1.4 SLR lenses as the viewer lenses. I did challenge his
claim as my experiments regarding the subject, proved to me that using
Slr camera lenses for use in a slide viewer would not work. I also took
issue with his claims as to how exposure determinations could be made.
John t. posted a 3d image of Nevada Falls, in Yosemite in an attempt to
prove his assertion. I considered the attempt to be pointless ads he
chose Velvia 50 film, which I did not consider an appropriate choice
considering the high contrast characteristics of Velvia 50 film when
shooting a such a high contrast subject in bright sunlight. I am not
aware that John T ever posted a picture of his 35mm slide viewer with
the SLR f/ 1.4 lenses, though he did claim that the viewing lenses did
give full coverage of 35mm slides, which I doubt to be factually true,
to this day. I was did not appreciate the mediocre 3d images he posted
on the web, either, but this was back in the early days of posting 3d
images on the web, when quality was difficult to come by, and digital
camera quality was not great. Since then, I have found that John T. has
since provided us with quality images of which I consider most to be
pretty good, while my prejudice towards favoring MF stereo continues to
today. In recent years I found no reason to contest any issues
presented by John T. as I do consider him to be an expert in his field
of digital 3d, whereas my knowledge of digital is very limited, as I
am, a basically a film oriented person.

> Ya mean like this? I started making them in 03

> http://i.pbase.com/o6/25/583725/1/108505842.dezoQ3Ld.Camera8027.jpg

> Bill