Eye separation & contributions

[P3D <pzuijlekom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    To all the 3D experts !

    Can anybody help me with the following :
    I have a Pentax BS and a Stereo Viewer II both
    of which I haven't used for a long time.
    A month ago I decided to shoot a roll with the
    BS, just for fun, indoor as well as outdoor.
    On return, I cut the slides and mounted them
    as usual (I'm no professional at all, fun and joy
    are the most important 'drives' for me).

    To my surprise, I am not able to view my slides
    in the SV II. It's 'one eye at a time'.
    I decided to take a rule and go through my
    stereo camera and viewer collection.
    To my surprise all of my camera's and viewers
    have a lens separation of about 65 mm. This
    shouldn't be surprising at all, of course,
    but the following, IMO, is.

    My Pentax SV II has a separation of 60 mm !
    So I checked with my neighbour, who is an
    excellent optician (makes all my glasses, and more)
    BTW, I've -14, both sides, so you can call that
    pretty shortsighted. My lens (=eye) separation
    happens to be 73 mm, which I didn't notice, nor
    care for before. I can't even remember having
    problems with my Pentax viewer in the past.
    My other viewers give me no problems at all.

    My questions are :

    1) Is it possible that your lens (=eye)
       separation changes over the years ?

    2) Is it possible to overcome the difference between
       'eye' separation and (viewer)lens separation
       because I'm wearing glasses ? Distance between
       eye and viewer lens being bigger than normal.

    3) Is there a way to look at my slides made in the
       past (about 400) with a Pentax 'clone' using
       a wider separation (say 65-70 mm) ?
       And if so, is there one available anywhere ?

    4) Am I the only one, having this 'problems' ?

    Glad to hear from all the experts (Don't be modest,
    there is a lot of professionalism on BOBCAT)

    There was another discussion lately about
    contributions to the list vs number of 'list members'.
    How many 'members' do we have actually ? Is that
    something only known by the moderators ? Is it public ?

    Some say 700, some 800. It must be more by now (IMO).
    So out of curiousity I made the following analysis.
    From digest #1252 to #1313, there were a total of
    870 contributions. Below is a list of everyone who
    had 5 or more. Again it's just for fun and for those
    who want to know, of course. I am myself a member of
    the Photo History list and I've never made a contribution
    to that list. I'm just enjoying myself in reading.
    (You can see, I'm on a modest 7 together with cracks like
    Dalia, Patrick & Wolfie!, to name but a few)

    AND GUESS WHO IS ON TOP HERE ? You're right ! DR. T.
    How can we do without him ?
    See, you can do lots of funny things with analysises
    like this ! The real cracks are on the bottom !

    (I did this with just plain DOS commands and a humble,
    outdated dBase III on my (again) humble 486-50 PC)


          number of                    name of
        contributions             contributor(ress?)
        -------------             ------------------
              5                   Chuck Field
              5                   Gerald Siegel
              5                   John Weiler
              5                   Lauren Michaels
              5                   Ronald Doerfler
              5                   S. Spicer
              5                   Shab Levy
              5                   Tom Martin
              6                   Andrew Woods
              6                   Don Radovich
              6                   Joerg Meyer
              6                   lasmart
              6                   Marcus Warrington
              6                   wwstrat
              7                   B. Sharp
              7                   Dalia Miller
              7                   Patrick Boeckstijns
              7                   Peter van Zuijlekom
              7                   Wolfie!
              8                   Richard Wood
              8                   S. Warren
              9                   Dan Shelley
              9                   Scooter
              9                   VMMARYANN
             10                   Bob Howard
             10                   CJMCE
             10                   John Roberts
             10                   Peter Davis
             11                   Harry Poster
             11                   ROLAND
             12                   John Golden
             13                   Jamie Drouin
             13                   Michael Kaplan
             14                   Alexander Klein
             14                   Gosfield
             14                   William Davis
             16                   Elliott Swanson
             16                   William Carter
             18                   Greg Erker
             19                   Greg Wageman
             21                   Josh Rubin
             21                   Michael Kersenbrock
             22                   John Bercovitz
             23                   Eric Goldstein
             23                   Jim Crowell
             23                   Marvin Jones
             35                   Bob Wier
             53                   Dr. George

    And besides all this chit-chat, I'm still looking
    for a Revere 33 body (for more than 20 years now !)
    I'm very sorry George, about you selling your last
    one. But I'll keep searching !   And hoping !
*******************************************************
*              Peter van Zuijlekom  The Netherlands   *
*         _____   pzuijlekom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   *
*       /      )                                      *
*     /  /     /              /                       *
*    (  /     /  ___         /    ___      . ____     *
*      /     /  /   )      _/_   /   )    /_/    )    *
*     /---/    |   /      //    |   /    /            *
*    /         \_/      / /     \_/     /             *
*   /         / \     /  /     / \     /              *
*  (---------/    \-/   (-----/    \--/               *
*******************************************************
*                                                     *
* The percieved usefulness of an article is inversely *
* proportional to its actual usefulness, once bought  *
* and paid for                                        *
*                                                     *
*******************************************************




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