Conversations

Photos

Files

All groups

About

<< Previous Thread Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts Next Thread >>

Subject: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-03-27 16:42:06
From: iandvaag

Attachments :

First off, I just want to mention that I viewed my first MF3D slide yesterday in a 3D world STL viewer with a mount I cut out of a cereal box and guessed the placement of the chips (I have no mounting jig, and I suck at free viewing). It was some Ilford PanF film that I reversal processed at home. What an incredible view! Up until this point, I had simply been viewing my images as digital anaglyphs made in StereoPhotoMaker, and viewing the actual film in a hand viewer is incomparably better! I finally understand all the hype.

Now I've been looking to make some mounts a bit more quickly than using an x-acto knife, and I'm considering getting a custom die made for use with the sizzix big shot or similar machine. I don't yet know what a custom die would cost, so I want to send a blueprint of the dimensions of the mount. I'm hoping to make mounts similar to the Rocky Mountain Memories "standard" 132mm x 80mm mounts with 50mm apertures and having 62mm aperture spacing. I have never seen one of these mounts in person, so I cant measure one. Can someone who has one of these mounts confirm the measurements of the template in the attached pdf file? I made the apertures on one side 2mm larger so that the stereo window would be set by the front aperture and not be "double blurred" if it wasn't perfectly folded. If this is excessively large, please advise me. Thanks.

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts [1 Attachment]
Date: 2016-03-27 18:38:08
From: Timo Puhakka

There is also a whole range of "Cricut" machines that can cut cardboard into custom designed shapes. You would have to learn the software to design the fold-over mount, but it is a fairly simple design to create. There would be no need to have any separate die made.

http://us.cricut.com/home/

Timo

On 27-Mar-16, at 6:42 PM, iandvaag@gmail.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

First off, I just want to mention that I viewed my first MF3D slide yesterday in a 3D world STL viewer with a mount I cut out of a cereal box and guessed the placement of the chips (I have no mounting jig, and I suck at free viewing). It was some Ilford PanF film that I reversal processed at home. What an incredible view! Up until this point, I had simply been viewing my images as digital anaglyphs made in StereoPhotoMaker, and viewing the actual film in a hand viewer is incomparably better! I finally understand all the hype.

Now I've been looking to make some mounts a bit more quickly than using an x-acto knife, and I'm considering getting a custom die made for use with the sizzix big shot or similar machine. I don't yet know what a custom die would cost, so I want to send a blueprint of the dimensions of the mount. I'm hoping to make mounts similar to the Rocky Mountain Memories "standard" 132mm x 80mm mounts with 50mm apertures and having 62mm aperture spacing. I have never seen one of these mounts in person, so I cant measure one. Can someone who has one of these mounts confirm the measurements of the template in the attached pdf file? I made the apertures on one side 2mm larger so that the stereo window would be set by the front aperture and not be "double blurred" if it wasn't perfectly folded. If this is excessively large, please advise me. Thanks.

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-03-27 19:17:20
From: iandvaag

Yes, you're right -- the cricut and similar machines have some desirable features (ability to do mounts of different apertures, shapes, etc) -- but I thought it might be less work per mount to go with a die. I'm still leaving my options open. In any case, I will need the dimensions of a "proper" mount.

I would also be willing to try a 140mm x 80mm cardboard mount, if people would be more interested in this "newer" format, however I thought perhaps I'd leave the 3D World type (140mm) mounts to the 3D printers and perhaps some members of the group are still using "older" viewers with 132mm slots. I don't plan to go into production to sell mounts, but if I found a way to produce them inexpensively (ie: that doesn't require much time investment per mount from me), I would be willing to sell them at cost to anyone in the group needing new mounts.

Ian

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-03-27 19:29:11
From: Geoffrey S. Waldo

Agreed!

I have a black cat cougar cutter...like the cricket it uses a plastic transport sheet to carry the workpiece...and the workpiece is held on via a tacky "reversible" adhesive layer. The X and y motion comes from the transport carrier and the knife motion. Many paper products stick a little too much but if you tune it right, they don't fray too much. You need enough sticky to keep the piece from sliding.

Sometimes multiple passes are needed to cut through cardboard, and the knife must be replaced often. But it's very easy to use Inkscape (freeware) to create SVG files and make the cut software is easy too.

.

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-03-27 20:04:00
From: Geoffrey S. Waldo

Ian,

You're a jewel!

G

Sent from my iPhone

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

On Mar 27, 2016, at 9:17 PM, iandvaag@gmail.com [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Yes, you're right -- the cricut and similar machines have some desirable features (ability to do mounts of different apertures, shapes, etc) -- but I thought it might be less work per mount to go with a die. I'm still leaving my options open. In any case, I will need the dimensions of a "proper" mount.

I would also be willing to try a 140mm x 80mm cardboard mount, if people would be more interested in this "newer" format, however I thought perhaps I'd leave the 3D World type (140mm) mounts to the 3D printers and perhaps some members of the group are still using "older" viewers with 132mm slots. I don't plan to go into production to sell mounts, but if I found a way to produce them inexpensively (ie: that doesn't require much time investment per mount from me), I would be willing to sell them at cost to anyone in the group needing new mounts.

Ian

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-03-28 07:08:04
From: Steven Lederman

Ian, I'd like to know more about your reversal process for PanF!

Regards,

Steven

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-03-28 07:40:08
From: Timo Puhakka

Me too!

Timo

On 28-Mar-16, at 9:07 AM, Steven Lederman gongadin@rogers.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

Ian, I'd like to know more about your reversal process for PanF!
Regards,
Steven

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts [1 Attachment]
Date: 2016-03-28 12:36:57
From: John Thurston

On 3/27/2016 2:42 PM, iandvaag@gmail.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

> . . viewing the actual film in a hand viewer is incomparably better! I finally understand all the hype.

Welcome to the Big League :)

> . . . Can someone who has one of these
> mounts confirm the measurements of the template in the
> attached pdf file?

I don't see an attached PDF. I'd be happy to look at it if
you email it directly to me. juneau3d atttt thurstons.us
(maybe that will make it through the yahoo email stripper)

> I made the apertures on one side 2mm
> larger so that the stereo window would be set by the front
> aperture and not be "double blurred" if it wasn't
> perfectly folded. If this is excessively large, please
> advise me. Thanks.

1mm on all sides is a perfectly fine choise. One thing I have
observed is light leakage in that extra gap (where the
cardboard is only one layer thick). This bothers some folks
more than others.

You can look at some notes I made on mounts:
http://stereo.thurstons.us/content/?page_id=168
It has a few dimensions, but they are offered by way of
comparison rather than as absolutes.

I've pulled out a few 80x132 mounts and taken a few
measurements.

The RMM 80x132 mount places the centerline of the image 34mm
above the bottom edge. It is _not_ centered in the 80mm
space. The 80x140 mounts do vertically center the image.

The rear apertures are commonly 1mm larger in all dimensions
than the front apertures. The rear apertures are square-cut.
The front are round-cornered. (Plenty of people don't like
the round-corner. I'm just relating facts here, not passing
judgement.)

The apertures are spaced at 62mm.

Some aperture sizes from the box currently on my table (HxW):
50x50
40x50
23.5x52
50x40

--
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts [1 Attachment]
Date: 2016-03-28 12:41:25
From: gfpguy1

Hi John,
Would you recommend then we place the centerline of various HxW combinations at 34 mm up from the bottom? I'm going to program my black cat cougar cutter with some SVG files and try out.
Geoff

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts [1 Attachment]
Date: 2016-03-28 12:43:31
From: gfpguy1

Another question:
What is the thickness of the cardboard? There was a fellow in Australia (last name Spicer) who'd found the "perfect" cardboard that didn't get fuzzies. I see George Themelis sold one box not too long ago.

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-03-28 12:58:33
From: Brian Reynolds

Timo Puhakka tpuhakka@ymail.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

> On 28-Mar-16, at 9:07 AM, Steven Lederman gongadin@rogers.com [MF3D-group]
> wrote:
> >
> >Ian, I'd like to know more about your reversal process for PanF!
>
> Me too!

Me three!

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see
https://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-03-28 13:13:24
From: John Thurston

On 3/28/2016 10:43 AM, gfpguy1@gmail.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

> Another question:
> What is the thickness of the cardboard?

How long is a piece of string?

The cardboard should be thick enough to block light, but not
so thick it can't be folded. It should be thick enough to be
fairly rigid, but not so thick it takes up too much space in
your box.

I have samples of many different thicknesses and opacity.
Some are so thin the outline of the film chip is visible
before it is backlit in the viewer. Some are thick and dark,
but built from layers with dissimilar moisture absorption so
they warp with the weather.

I'd love to try some mounts cut on the bias of the
paper-grain. When folded in half, the grain of the halves
would lay at right angles and (I suspect) make a very rigid
mount when glued. But bias cutting uses material
inefficiently, and would make the mounts much more expensive.

> There was a fellow in Australia (last name Spicer) who'd
> found the "perfect" cardboard that didn't get fuzzies. I
> see George Themelis sold one box not too long ago.

As I recall (maybe from a conversation with Paul Talbot), the
MF3D mounts were inspired by the Realist mounts Steve Spicer
designed and produced. Steve didn't actually have a hand in
producing the MF3D mounts.

That doesn't mean he didn't find excellent cardboard and
produce excellent mounts. It doesn't mean we don't call the
80x132 cardboard mounts, "Spicer". Just that I suspect the
attribution with respect to MF3D is misplaced.

I have dug through my email archives but am unable to find
the reference. I welcome anyone to chime in with some
first-hand knowledge.

--
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-03-28 13:53:17
From: iandvaag

Attachments :

rmm_mount_template.png

I'm sorry that the .pdf file was not accessible. See this low resolution png for the proposed mount dimensions.

For those who are interested, I created a new thread on my b&w reversal process so as to keep this thread from becoming too cluttered.

Ian

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-03-28 14:28:11
From: gfpguy1

Thanks John
Ha! The correct quip may be "how thick is a piece of string"); wink wink
Anyway, yes there are so many types of cardboard. I've used 72 or 100 lb 11 mil YUPO synthetic paper to make view master type reels from, cutting the vanes from a 6 mil heat activated double sided acrylic (2 mil adhesive/ 2 mil polyester/ 2 mil adhesive). The vane assembly is sandwiched between the front and back and the whole thing is heat laminated. Then the chips are inserted or removed at will. The chips are slightly tapered and slip into the tapered pockets
I'd thought about this for MF, but then the alignment has to be done during the cutting phase, since the pockets are fixed.
For MF, you could still use YUPO, which is waterproof and cuts easily without fuzzies. Then, you could use transfer adhesive sheets similar to what David Lee (RIP) used. But water based adhesive won't stick to YUPO.
Another reason for YUPO was the fact it doesn't fray out by sticking too agressively to the tacky carrier sheets on the X/y robot cutters. Given the level of art involved in good MF,
I think the time involved in cutting mounts even entirely by hand is justified. It's often a fraction of the time you'd spend scouting, shooting, processing etc.

if anyone has a specific favorite board for paper mounts that would be cool to know!

G

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-03-28 14:28:35
From: John Thurston

On 3/28/2016 10:41 AM, gfpguy1@gmail.com [MF3D-group] wrote:

> Hi John,
> Would you recommend then we place the centerline of
> various HxW combinations at 34 mm up from the bottom? I'm
> going to program my black cat cougar cutter with some SVG
> files and try out.

Hey, I wasn't recommending, but since you asked . . .

The viewing circle of most lenses used in viewers doesn't
leave a lot of wiggle room. Therefore, I recommend the
centerline of your image should coincide with the centerline
of your viewer. If your viewer was designed for 80x132
mounts, it is likely designed for the "lower" centerline. If
your viewer was designed for 80x140 mount, it probably will
work better for the "higher" centerline.

In short, "yes". I recommend using the established centerline
appropriate for the mount size you are making.

FWIW, I have a little spacer I built to lift 80x132 mounts
when I use them in my 3D World viewers. For a quick viewing,
I don't reach for it. I'll use it when I find the image I was
after and want to appreciate it at its best.

Making a similar "lowerer" for the 80x140 images doesn't make
any sense since they are too wide to fit into my 80x132 viewer.

--
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-03-28 15:41:10
From: Peter Bahouth

John Thurston....

Do you have any info on your "spacer" used to lift 80x132 mounts?

Also, isn't the width of these mounts is smaller than the slot in the 3D world viewer? Have you made a "spacer " to fill the wider slot when using smller (width) mounts?

Peter Bahouth
(202) 341-3310
Treehouses

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-03-28 15:49:43
From: Bob Venezia

Steve Spicer did make some MF3D mounts. I still have some. Just like his 35mm mounts, they are white and you need to punch out the apertures.

The Spicer mounts were extra wide. They have less wiggle room for mounting to the window. And they are landscape (shorter than they are wide).

Bob Venezia

Seattle, Washington

On Mar 28, 2016, at 12:13 PM, John Thurston juneau3d@thurstons.us [MF3D-group] <MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

On 3/28/2016 10:43 AM, gfpguy1@gmail.com [MF3D-group] wrote:
> Another question:
> What is the thickness of the cardboard?

How long is a piece of string?

The cardboard should be thick enough to block light, but not
so thick it can't be folded. It should be thick enough to be
fairly rigid, but not so thick it takes up too much space in
your box.

I have samples of many different thicknesses and opacity.
Some are so thin the outline of the film chip is visible
before it is backlit in the viewer. Some are thick and dark,
but built from layers with dissimilar moisture absorption so
they warp with the weather.

I'd love to try some mounts cut on the bias of the
paper-grain. When folded in half, the grain of the halves
would lay at right angles and (I suspect) make a very rigid
mount when glued. But bias cutting uses material
inefficiently, and would make the mounts much more expensive.

> There was a fellow in Australia (last name Spicer) who'd
> found the "perfect" cardboard that didn't get fuzzies. I
> see George Themelis sold one box not too long ago.

As I recall (maybe from a conversation with Paul Talbot), the
MF3D mounts were inspired by the Realist mounts Steve Spicer
designed and produced. Steve didn't actually have a hand in
producing the MF3D mounts.

That doesn't mean he didn't find excellent cardboard and
produce excellent mounts. It doesn't mean we don't call the
80x132 cardboard mounts, "Spicer". Just that I suspect the
attribution with respect to MF3D is misplaced.

I have dug through my email archives but am unable to find
the reference. I welcome anyone to chime in with some
first-hand knowledge.

--
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-03-28 18:47:03
From: John Thurston

On 3/28/2016 1:41 PM, Peter Bahouth pbahouth@gmail.com
[MF3D-group] wrote:

> John Thurston....
> Do you have any info on your "spacer" used to lift 80x132 mounts?
> Also, isn't the width of these mounts is smaller than the slot in the 3D
> world viewer? Have you made a "spacer " to fill the wider slot when using
> smller (width) mounts?

Details can be found on one of my "ancient" web pages.
http://stereo.thurstons.us/mountcarrier.htm

In short, I used one half of an original ("terrible") 3D
World mount to supply the outside dimensions and provide a
thickness shim. I attached some neoprene to the
left/right/bottom edges to hold an 80x132 mount in the
correct position.

--
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-04-04 17:09:58
From: iandvaag

I'm considering going ahead and purchasing a die and crank operated cutting machine to cut 132x80 mounts. This is more expensive than I thought it would be and is overkill if I'm just producing mounts for myself. Would anyone be interested in purchasing some mounts to help me recover the cost? I'm not looking for a pre-order commitment, I'm just trying to gauge the interest.

What did Rocky Mountain Memories charge/how much would you be willing to pay nowadays? Dalia and Dr. T have some (cropped aperture) mounts for about $1 apiece. Is this reasonable for most of you? (Note my mounts would be 50x50mm apertures). I understand the price depends on the quality, which I don't know for sure yet. I'm told the cuts will be clean. Also note that I could take requests for paper type (weight, colour, archival).

I'd like to get a sense if I could sell 50 mounts or 1000 mounts over a couple of years.

Ian

Subject: Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts
Date: 2016-04-05 09:55:52
From: Vladimir Galkin

Ian;

I bought some RMM sized mounts done in Black paper somewhere a while back and I really liked the look of that vs. the white paper mounts that I have/had, so I'd be willing to buy 50 or so of those at $1/each - perhaps more... I'm still shooting MF but not nearly as much as before, as long as they keep making MF film I'll be shooting it... so if you can do black paper mounts I'll commit to 50-75 over the next year or so...

Hope that helps.

From: "iandvaag@gmail.com [MF3D-group]"
To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 4:09 PM
Subject: [MF3D-group] Re: Correct dimensions for RMM 132x80 mounts

Subject: Update on new cardboard mounts
Date: 2016-04-22 23:10:59
From: iandvaag

Thanks for those of you who responded to give me an idea of how many people may require mounts over the next little while. I think there's enough response that at least I won't lose oodles of money with this project. I've gone ahead and placed an order for a custom die which I anticipate will arrive in month or so. So good news, there will be a new source of cardboard 132x80 mounts with 50mm apertures! Stay tuned for availability and pricing.

Ian