I recently noticed that the latest deWijs, viewer, apparently,
uses mediocre lenses which are spaced 62mm apart, not 65mm, which
history has told us would better serve the public! I don't understand
why, as in the past deWeijs had a reputation for building high class
viewers !

Best regards,

DON

Why are you posting this in MF viewer forum? Are phone viewers considered Medium Format?
In any case, show me another stereo viewer that can stand up to years of public viewing. I don't know that any MF viewers were ever made- 35mm or Superslide.

ron labbe
studio 3D

    Hi Ron,
     I don't own own a "phone", but consider any viewer that utilizes the fl lenses that are designated as being contained in the de Wijs digital viewer to be of a MF viewer size, certainly an image larger than a 127 format image which offers a 41x41mm image, which has been referred as being a MF image size. Would you please indicate the image  size presented on a "phone"? All of the de Weijs 35 mm viewers that I have seen contained viewer lenses which contained 3 or more lens elements, not 2 lens achromats.  I recall Paul Wing, proudly showing me his $800 de Wijs 35mm viewer, about 20 years ago, saying that it was the future, and MF was not the future. At that time Paul was shooting both 35mm and MF { 120 Roleidoscope} slides. At the time he was in the NSA, Delta MF folio, along with me and about a dozen other MF shooters. I considered Paul to be Handicapped as he was using a mediocre plastic King Inn MF viewer, which among other problems used cheap plastic lenses and provided very uneven illumination.

Best Regards,
DON

     I was puzzled about the 62mm interocular because it is probably OK for use with small children, but not for adults with an interocular spacing of up to 70mm.

 

Why are you posting this in MF viewer forum? Are phone viewers considered Medium Format?
In any case, show me another stereo viewer that can stand up to years of public viewing. I don't know that any MF viewers were ever made- 35mm or Superslide.

ron labbe
studio 3D

My Sony Z5 phone has a screen size of 121mm by 68mm, which makes a stereo pair of that is 60mm X 68mm, slightly larger than a typical stereo MF slide. I use the lenses from a 3D world STL viewer for viewing. 

>>  I was puzzled about the 62mm interocular because it is probably

OK for use with small children, but not for adults with an interocular spacing of up to 70mm.<<

Gee, Don...
I'm an adult and have never had a problem with any deWijs. In fact, not one person who looked into the digital viewer at NSA had a problem, nor anyone else I've shown. But, YOU are the expert... so I will let deWijs know and ask him to immediately cease production (even though you have never seen the viewer). Thanks for saving us from bad 3D!

ron labbe
studio 3D
    Hi Ron,
     I don't own own a "phone", but consider any viewer that utilizes the fl lenses that are designated as being contained in the de Wijs digital viewer to be of a MF viewer size, certainly an image larger than a 127 format image which offers a 41x41mm image, which has been referred as being a MF image size. Would you please indicate the image  size presented on a "phone"? All of the de Weijs 35 mm viewers that I have seen contained viewer lenses which contained 3 or more lens elements, not 2 lens achromats.  I recall Paul Wing, proudly showing me his $800 de Wijs 35mm viewer, about 20 years ago, saying that it was the future, and MF was not the future. At that time Paul was shooting both 35mm and MF { 120 Roleidoscope} slides. At the time he was in the NSA, Delta MF folio, along with me and about a dozen other MF shooters. I considered Paul to be Handicapped as he was using a mediocre plastic King Inn MF viewer, which among other problems used cheap plastic lenses and provided very uneven illumination.

Best Regards,
DON

     I was puzzled about the 62mm interocular because it is probably OK for use with small children, but not for adults with an interocular spacing of up to 70mm.     Hi Ron,
     I don't own own a "phone", but consider any viewer that utilizes the fl lenses that are designated as being contained in the de Wijs digital viewer to be of a MF viewer size, certainly an image larger than a 127 format image which offers a 41x41mm image, which has been referred as being a MF image size. Would you please indicate the image  size presented on a "phone"? All of the de Weijs 35 mm viewers that I have seen contained viewer lenses which contained 3 or more lens elements, not 2 lens achromats.  I recall Paul Wing, proudly showing me his $800 de Wijs 35mm viewer, about 20 years ago, saying that it was the future, and MF was not the future. At that time Paul was shooting both 35mm and MF { 120 Roleidoscope} slides. At the time he was in the NSA, Delta MF folio, along with me and about a dozen other MF shooters. I considered Paul to be Handicapped as he was using a mediocre plastic King Inn MF viewer, which among other problems used cheap plastic lenses and provided very uneven illumination.

Best Regards,
DON

     I was puzzled about the 62mm interocular because it is probably OK for use with small children, but not for adults with an interocular spacing of up to 70mm.