Ugliest viewer contest (was Double achromat viewer & superslides)

[Paul Talbot <ptww@xxxxxxxxx>]

Greg Erker wrote:

>   I'm now the proud owner of the ugliest
> 41x101, 2x2x2, superslide viewer in the world.

Well I don't have a superslide viewer, but I've been trying
to find an opportunity to post to the list about my own
"ugliest viewer."  It consists of nothing but a) a cardboard
box; b) a piece of white plastic from a plastic sack, held on
with a bit of tape; and c) a pair of the 100 mm lenses that
Sam has been selling.  Now that's one cheesey viewer!  But the
price was right! :-)

Should this be added to Robert's gallery, or will it send all
the other viewers there running away, shrieking in fright?  ;-)

It actually could be useful to help recruit folks put off by
startup expense/hassle of MF.  A $25 MF viewer that can be built
in about 1/2 an hour, together with the 2 Ricohflex TLRs for a
total of about $60, and I have a complete system for under $90.
Not recommended for the vain!  ;-)

I promised a new member of the list the details on this viewer
quite some time back.  The description is in full narrative
form with lots of background, so if all you want to see is the
executive summary version, you can ignore the rest of the message!

I had been dabbling in MF stereo, on a pretty low volume and
infrequent basis, for about 15 months.  All with no MF stereo
viewer.  I was using a Reel-3D lorgnette with the slides on a
"light table" of sorts.  Then a series of events finally propelled
me upgrade my MF viewing.  First, I returned from my Canada trip
with a few rolls of MF stereo shots and a pair of lenses from Sam.
(I was able to use them hand-held with the slides on the light table,
but my wife could not get them to work for her.)  Then I commit
to participating in Joel's MF folio, so I get to thinking it
would be nice to have something better.  Then this hotshot ;-) **
newbie Deering fellow starts telling us how he already has his
Alan Lewis kit viewer ready to go and he hasn't even shot any pics
yet.  That was the final straw!

** JOKE, don't take offense!  ;-)

Over the course of several days at the office I kept eyeing an
empty cardboard box sitting on a nearby table, thinking it looks
pretty darn close to the right width for MF stereo slides.  Finally
I can't stand it any longer, so I whip out the pocket knife and
start hacking at the box.  I used a MF mount to set the spacing
for the lenses, cut a couple round holes by hand, and mounted the
lenses flush to the box.  Very easy to do, because the lenses are
mounted in plastic, with integral threaded retainer (terminology?).
This fixed focus setting conveniently fell such that a slide right
at the distance of the inner flap would be in sharp focus.  I cut
a hole in the far end of the box to allow light in.  No diffuser
at this stage.  I had completely removed the top flaps of the box,
then cut a slot for the slide in one of the flaps.  I pushed the
flap down inside the open top of the box until it reached an
appropriate height setting.  It stays there just based on surface
tension against 3 sides of the box.  I had no slide with me that
day, but printed a 3D ascii line of text to test the viewer and
it seemed to work.  I was worried about structural integrity, so
I had not cut anything from the length of the box.  It was about
the length of a shoebox.

I took the box home and tried it with a slide and discovered some
problems.  I knew I still needed to address diffusion, but tried
it first by pointing at realatively diffuse flourescent lights.
There was a problem with a dark shadow at the bottom of the slide.
I kept enlarging the opening at the end of the box, but the shadow
would not go away.  It turned out all that excess length of the
box would cast a shadow on the bottom of the slide, even with the
entire far end cut away.  I was forced to take a chance on cutting
from the length of the box.  I was surprised that the three sides
of the shortened box continued to hold their shape perfectly (er,
that is, as well as a cardboard box normally does).  This eliminated
the shadow problem.  Next issue was the diffuser.  I found a multi-
ply plastic bag that phone books had been delivered in.  The inner
part was a solid white--no printed to text to interfere with the
view.  A white kitchen plastic trash bag would probably work also.
I cut a piece of the white plastic, stretched it across the open
end of the box, and behold!  A newfound appreciation for the beauty
of MF stereo slides.  ;-)  Quite an improvement over the very low
quality lorgnette, and also over hand-holding the lenses in front
of my eyes with the slide on a light table.

I did find that I needed a septum between the left and right image
to block some "cross-talk."  Another slot in the top flat, and a
piece of scrap cardboard from cut away box pieces took care of that.
Also, this box is a bit wide, so I kludged a pair of light blockers
to block the light passing around the sides of the slide.  Two more
cardboard scraps, taped (poorly) in place took care of that for now.
I found I have another box at home that is a bit narrower--just about
perfect width, in fact.  So the new and improved model will eliminate
the scraps at the sides.

The cheesy viewer helped my weed out all my horribly mounted MF
slides when selecting entries for the folio; to appreciate the
work of others when the folio arrived; and to share the folio
entries with the Austin stereo club.

One of these days I hope to pick up one of Alan's kits.  But I
confess to being concerned the assembly steps could prove too
daunting for me.  Heck, it took all the ingenuity and construction
skills I could muster, after several days of kicking the idea
around in the back of my head, to pull off this minimalist project!
So for now, I'll have to get along with the world's ugliest MF
stereo viewer.  I think this one would make Greg's super slide
viewer look like a masterpiece! ;-)

Paul Talbot