[MF3D.FORUM:1197] Re: Freeviewing OK for comparing base brackets?

["Michael K. Davis" <zilch0@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George,

Thanks for the feedback.

At 01:17 AM 8/30/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I read this 5 times... Here is what I think you are
>trying to say:
>
>1. You don't have a MF viewer yet...
>2. You are eager to explore stereo base...
>3. You are wondering how valid it would be to use your
>   35mm gear and draw conclusions about what base is best...
>
>Let me ask you this:
>
>4. Don't you have a 35mm stereo viewer?  You can buy these
>   inexpensively.  Why resort to prints and freeviewing?

I was wondering if I could expedite the task of comparing many test shots
by just shooting print film and freeviewing to avoid mounting the chromes.

>
>5. If prints are more convenient for you, why not get a
>   good stereoscope to view them?

I'm going to borrow one.

>
>Personally, since the issue of the stereo base is related
>to viewing, I would hesitate to freeview prints in order
>to draw conclusions about viewing slides.  The idea of 
>ortho is 1) match stereo base with interocular, 2) match
>viewing and recording "focal lengths".  Even if you are
>OK with #1, you are certainly violating #2.

My intention in posting this question was just to ask if conclusions
reached in a different format (dare I mention 35mm again?) would be valid
when translated to MF.  I think the answer is "yes" as long as I go out of
my way to make sure proportionate geometry is maintained throughout.  If I
put my mind to it, I believe I could even satisfy "#2" above, by sizing the
prints appropriately - for freeviewing or for use with a steroscope.  

>
>In any case, here is what I predict will happen:  If you
>freeview prints, you will tend to favor wider bases 
>(hyperstereo).  What the lack of resolution (result of 
>freeviewing prints) takes away, depth attempts to restore.  

This I hadn't anticipated - thanks for the warning!

Mike