New viewer? Which Format?

[swarren@xxxxxxxx]

In the current talk of new viewers for $150 which we could build
(home-built or otherwise), I'm not sure we're really clear on which format
is in the greatest demand. With so many red-buttons still showing up on
dealer tables, I can't see that we will ever top this realist format viewer
for less money.

Now, 2x2 is a horse of a different color. I would gladly pay $150 for a
viewer that allowed:
        - rack & pinion focus with lenses of such quality that I could take
my
          glasses off to enjoy the scenes (basically comparable to the Realist
          doublets);
        - vertical adjustment (thumbscrew?) for at one half of the slide pair;
        - horizontal compensation for interoccular differences, and
        - internal illumination.

Others may have more demands, but these are mine. Now, George says lenses
of this sort cost $60 a pair even in bulk. I wonder if there are any
overseas outlets that could trim that cost down? Not my field, just asking.

As a hobbyist woodworker, I attempted to construct a viewer out of thin
sheets of red oak, with an internal focus system to move the lense assembly
fore and aft. The problem in designing something with so little skill was
to have that feature AND horizontal adjustment for interoccular. So I was
willing to give up the interoccular in exchange for the focus.

Then I found the focus to be a major headache, so I'm now down to thinking
of a design that just has a box with slits in the top for two slides, a
nose notch for getting your eyes close to the optics, a steal-the-light
panel on the back, and a pair of very good lenses in a fixed focal length
position. It could even have a thumbscrew underneath one of the slide
halves to compensate for mounting error when you get 2x2 slides back from
Kodalux.

Given the amount of labor that would go into something even this basic, I
couldn't see anyone selling these handmade jobs for less than $150, because
it would probably take ten hours of labor, on top of $60 for opics, just to
construct, glue, sand, finish and, of course, "check for quality control!"
;)

But if people built their own, based on a real simple design, we'd be off
and running. Maybe those of us working in wood could make two or three at a
time, to help out those who are "handicraft-challenged." Selling the
"overrun" at a modest fee might be a great way to offset lense costs for
the viewer you keep for yourself.

A better "simple" viewer COULD be had, if we wanted to pursue it on the
homemade side. Long ago, O.W. Holmes threw his classic stereoscope design
into the public domain immediately, for the good of the cause. If someone
could spec such a project, and donate it to the cause, we would be in
business.

I hope my failed experience helps to stimulate some of the more competent
designers in the group. I don't know optics from opera (other than the part
about the fat lady at the end), so I'm not the one to lay out the
blueprint. But I've been thinking about it for a long time, and failed at
it once or twice before I threw all the woodscraps back into the box.

Stephen in Roanoke



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