Hello Bill:

I shall start my part of today's word battle by asking Bill G., a second
time, when and where did I say, "There has been no improvements in lens
design since the 1950's." Asserted on 9-30-2011 at 8:11 AM, PST., by
Bill G. I do not appreciate having my knowledge of general science
being questioned. I do not believe that I have arrived, as of yet, to
being in in a stage of dementia where I would have uttered such a
ridiculous assertion.

Also, is the, diagonal, viewing angle of a 55mm by 69mm film image only
72 degrees, and not actually closer to being about about 100 degrees, as
I did suggest, yesterday ? Many times I do see 3d information cues in
the corners of 3d images ? Incidentally, I do not have access to MF
slide mounts that contain film apertures that have a width of 55mm. They
must be custom made,or be custom ordered ordered ? What MF viewer
works well with such wide film apertures ?

Finally, how does image width pertain to being an, "ortho image"?

DON

On 10/14/2011 10:45 AM, Don Lopp wrote:

>
> Hello Bill:
>
> I shall start my part of today's word battle by asking Bill G., a second
> time, when and where did I say, "There has been no improvements in lens
> design since the 1950's." Asserted on 9-30-2011 at 8:11 AM, PST., by
> Bill G. I do not appreciate having my knowledge of general science
> being questioned. I do not believe that I have arrived, as of yet, to
> being in in a stage of dementia where I would have uttered such a
> ridiculous assertion.
>

Hi Don, just when I was hoping we would be winding down our communications, you are now
asking questions of issues a few weeks back??? Yet, somehow, we can't keep current
correspondence flowing? Your request above was responded to in the past. Once again, I
don't have time to respond to your every whim.... you need to find someone else on these
lists to play ball with..... I have done my share...

>
> Also, is the, diagonal, viewing angle of a 55mm by 69mm film image only
> 72 degrees, and not actually closer to being about about 100 degrees, as
> I did suggest, yesterday ? Many times I do see 3d information cues in
> the corners of 3d images ? Incidentally, I do not have access to MF
> slide mounts that contain film apertures that have a width of 55mm. They
> must be custom made,or be custom ordered ordered ? What MF viewer
> works well with such wide film apertures ?
>

My custom made mounts, my custom made viewer....

> Finally, how does image width pertain to being an, "ortho image"?
>

It doesn't..... you have jumped the fence Don....you started out querying this position,
now you seem to be defending it.... which is why I must drop out....


Best Regards
Bill G

> DON
>
>

Yesterday, I asked Bill:

Is the, diagonal, viewing angle of a 55mm by 69mm film image only
72 degrees, and not actually closer to being about about 100 degrees, as
I did suggest, yesterday ?
His indifferent non answer was:

> My custom made mounts, my custom made viewer....

Bill G. also told me that: "Fortunately, 47mm on 69mm film is only 72
degrees, not a 100 degrees,,, you need to do your math." Really?
Actually, the the diagonal FOV of a 55mm x 69mm image is much longer
that 69mm, amounting to about 105mm, and does amount to a viewing angle
of about about 96 degrees, which is reasonably close to my estimated 100
degree FOV.

Regarding the viewing of 55mm x 69mm images, Bill's answer was, "You can
view this close with ortho with slight corner clipping." My belief is
that more problems will occur than just having the corners clipped, as
the homologous points will have to be positioned correctly so as to
avoid forced divergence of his eyes, which is normally done by spacing
the homologous points to be 65 mm apart when using commercially made
slide mounts for use in commercially available MF viewers. It would be
interesting to know how Bill is able to solve the divergence problem. To
solve the problem will require sacrificing a considerable portion of the
55mm x 90mm transparency area. How Bill solves this problem of avoiding
divergence is Bill's problem even with his, alleged," Custom Viewer" and
"Custom Slide Mounts".

I use the term alleged, because I am not aware that any on the 3d webs
have indicated that they have, actually seen any of his, "Custom Made",
3d toys. To date, all I have seen are a few PR illustrations excerpted
from foreign publications showing 3d gear which I have no knowledge as
to whether or not any has actually been manufactured. Bill has offered
pictures, to me for a cost of $100. My finances are such that I do not
have a hundred dollars to throw away. As I recall, in early August it
was un-named Leica lenses, later it turned out to be Zeiss Biogon
lenses, and on it went from there. Apparently we must to use our
imagination regarding the other 3d toys, such as the 50mm loupe's that
are, supposedly, capable of viewing 3d images, while at the same time
maintaining comfortable homologous points, even when the 3d image area
is 55mm by 90mm. A former 3d acqaintence, Tom L. looked for more than 9
years for such Loupe's to go with his Leep transparencies, (shot with
his own Leep camera). He never found any such loupe's. He is now
shooting with twin 38mm lensed Hasselblads. I doubt that such loupe's as
you describe do exist, as Tom L. would have found them, as price was no
object.

Apparently, I will no longer have the possibility of finding out, when
and where I, supposedly, made the ridiculous assertion that: "There has
been no improvements in lens design since the 50's."

Well, I will repeat myself for the 3rd time.... zzzz...zzzz..zzzz

On 10/14/2011 9:15 PM, Don Lopp wrote:
>
>
> Yesterday, I asked Bill:
>
> Is the, diagonal, viewing angle of a 55mm by 69mm film image only
> 72 degrees, and not actually closer to being about about 100 degrees, as
> I did suggest, yesterday ?
> His indifferent non answer was:
> > My custom made mounts, my custom made viewer....
>
> Bill G. also told me that: "Fortunately, 47mm on 69mm film is only 72
> degrees, not a 100 degrees,,, you need to do your math." Really?
> Actually, the the diagonal FOV of a 55mm x 69mm image is much longer
> that 69mm, amounting to about 105mm, and does amount to a viewing angle
> of about about 96 degrees, which is reasonably close to my estimated 100
> degree FOV.


The "H" in HFOV, stands for Horizontal.... OK? That is what
I have quoted on every forum I have ever participated on..... which is 72 deg HFOV....
clear yet?




>
> Regarding the viewing of 55mm x 69mm images, Bill's answer was, "You can
> view this close with ortho with slight corner clipping." My belief is
> that more problems will occur than just having the corners clipped, as
> the homologous points will have to be positioned correctly so as to
> avoid forced divergence of his eyes, which is normally done by spacing
> the homologous points to be 65 mm apart when using commercially made
> slide mounts for use in commercially available MF viewers.


"commercially" available viewers.... I have only written about
30x through the years, I view through custom made viewers and optics.... why can't you
comprehend that? Or do you just keep forgetting? I mentioned several times, as well as
JR, that you can't view straight through at this width....did you read JR's post? Don,
part of the problem is, you think the entire wold does 3d your way, and there is no other
way.... which is absurd. You cut film out of the camera, put it in a mount, and stick it
in the viewer..... I have been experimenting with viewer designs for 7 years, I passed
the simple mount and commercial viewers a decade ago, I was not happy with that system, so
I decided to wander off and innovate.... is that OK by you? Why are you so offended by
this?


> It would be
> interesting to know how Bill is able to solve the divergence problem. To
> solve the problem will require sacrificing a considerable portion of the
> 55mm x 90mm transparency area. How Bill solves this problem of avoiding
> divergence is Bill's problem even with his, alleged," Custom Viewer" and
> "Custom Slide Mounts".

zzzz...zzzzz....zzzz please re read my previous posts.....
mirrors, enlargements, digital, etc. There is more than "Dons way" to view a 3d pair...

>
> I use the term alleged, because I am not aware that any on the 3d webs
> have indicated that they have, actually seen any of his, "Custom Made",
> 3d toys. To date, all I have seen are a few PR illustrations excerpted
> from foreign publications showing 3d gear which I have no knowledge as
> to whether or not any has actually been manufactured. Bill has offered
> pictures, to me for a cost of $100. My finances are such that I do not
> have a hundred dollars to throw away.



But wait.... why would you be throwing away a $100? You
seem completely convinced that my allegations are false? That is the basis of your smear
campaign against me. Everything I have "alleged" is false, right? If I don't
produce the images, I will send you $500...how is that for a return on your skepticism?
Now, lets see how strong you want to stand behind your "allegations" that I am not being
honest about what I write...... its called, put up, or shut up, and I am offering you 5:1
odds Don, it's your ONE chance to call my bluff, and look like a superstar on these
forums, and finally expose me for the fraud that I am, and at the same time, make some
serious cash to further your hobby.... As always Don, I am willing to stand behind my
"allegations" .... are you?

the conviction to "stand behind his allegations"....but that won't stop Don from
continuing his smear campaign>


> As I recall, in early August it
> was un-named Leica lenses, later it turned out to be Zeiss Biogon
> lenses, and on it went from there.

You once again forgot, and therefore your allegations are
false.... I listed the current lenses I have settled on for my 3 RBT S3 bodies... and
had them all mechanically linked.... one of them was the Leica 16-18-21 Tri Elmar..... I
have used many Leica lenses on these S3's.... again, why not call my bluff? You will
be a hero on these forums and make some serious cash Don.... stand behind your smear
campaign, make it stick!


> Apparently we must to use our
> imagination regarding the other 3d toys, such as the 50mm loupe's that
> are, supposedly, capable of viewing 3d images, while at the same time
> maintaining comfortable homologous points, even when the 3d image area
> is 55mm by 90mm. A former 3d acqaintence, Tom L. looked for more than 9
> years for such Loupe's to go with his Leep transparencies, (shot with
> his own Leep camera). He never found any such loupe's.


Are you reading any of the posts over the past few years?
It appears you have NOT, or you forget so fast, that each post re-starts everything from
scratch, every single day! Now, once again, you are right Don, both me and your friend
tom could never find any such loupes on the market, cause they do NOT EXIST...I had them
all custom designed and built...what part of that don't you understand??? I did not buy
them from B&H, if I did, I would give everyone the stock number so they could go buy them
as well... sheeeesh.....


OK Don, ya ready to stand up and be a hero? Take my challenge and make some serious
money? If not, I think its time we PERMANENTLY END communications between us again, as
its unfair to other list members, and in which case, please do not start badgering me off
list with emails in which you feel compelled to degrade me.... fair enough? I would
never do the same to you...and I would never doubt any of the things you write, but I
don't expect the mutual respect in return, its just not your style. I am on these lists
to have fun, not go through these ludicrous battles with you. I know I am not your only
victim for off-list email badgering, (others have written me off list sharing their
experience being on the Don hate list).....but I sure hope I am the last one you attack so
maliciously .....

Bill




> He is now
> shooting with twin 38mm lensed Hasselblads. I doubt that such loupe's as
> you describe do exist, as Tom L. would have found them, as price was no
> object.
>
> Apparently, I will no longer have the possibility of finding out, when
> and where I, supposedly, made the ridiculous assertion that: "There has
> been no improvements in lens design since the 50's."
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>