Viewmaster mods

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. George A. Themelis writes

>Yes, until they try to "advance"... ;)

You got me there!

>Many people do not pay much attention
>at the edges.  You said that your modified VM viewer will cut off
>10% from the edges but that does not matter because the image is
>so wide.  Well, the 3Discover viewer did not cut anything from
>the edges and the distortion and chromatic aberration is within a
>reasonable limit right at the edge.  That sounds like a better
>viewer to me...  Take a second look and check your viewer again.  
>There should be a difference but maybe this difference is not 
>important for you...
>
>Some people would not see a difference between the achromatic
>stereoscope discussed earlier and the regular stereoscope.  There
>is a big difference for me and any price difference would be
>justified.

You have a very good point about the edges of the lenses but with the
viewmaster even the edges showed no distortion. Its not viewable 
normally but if you move the eyes slightly to the left or right you
can examine those areas. You mention that you find the 3Discover is 
within a reasonable limit right at the edge. I take this to mean that
this viewer is fair or is it better than that from your observation?
It is true I probably am not as critical as you are but I accept
Chevy quality in my case but do know a Rolls when I see one. I have
not been seriously into 3d as you have but have dabbled in it on and
off for over 20 years thou the novelty of viewing 3d pictures has still
not worn off in me I have raised my standards somewhat and don't accept
mediocre quality. I have been critical, in my opinion on optical viewers
on other matters (low power binoculars for close up work ). I have looked 
at quite a few from $1 to $700 ones! And from what I have seen thru the 
years ,is that in general you get what you pay for but their is always 
pleasent exceptions (not for telescopes thou:-(. Now if money is no 
object I would have bought the $700 pair, but since that cost to much
for my intended purpose I looked at the $100 range. In that range I looked
at quite a few and I actually found one at $2 that performed better 
optically than one I found for $80. The only difference thou was that the
$80 one had better field of view but the optics was very poor with a slight
haze in it. I did have to look thru alot of under $10 magnifiers before 
I found that particular one. I also have amassed over the years quite a few
lenses and have a broad spectrum of quality lenses. Your point is well taken
that for people that are serious into excellence, anything short of that is
not enough to judge or appreciate the quality of slides or pictures. I do
not have much experience with what the 3d community puts out there ,  
generally from what I saw in Rochester there were very few viewers that
impressed me ,the one or two that did I do not know their names but I
suspect they were  not commercial units. On a same note at Rochester I had
the opportunity to see the Loreo first hand and did not buy it initially
because 
I was put off by the poor quality of the image taken with that camera. I had
examined the view with the "deluxe" viewer that comes with the camera. 
I tried looking at it with the Loreo mini viewer. With that one it was 
harder to view the whole picture and the quality was not an improvement.
I then tried a $3 plastic viewer and guess what. The picture was much
better. Not 1st quality mind you but it went from being unacceptable to good. 
Then I realized it was not the camera after all but the viewers that were
no good. The viewers made the picture look out of focus among other things,
but the blurriness was the most obvious. Now don't get me wrong I am not
trying to say the $3 viewer is very good but it was much better than the 
deluxe or mini Loreo viewer. They have a decent camera but their viewer
doesn't do it justice. All I am trying to say by this that money doesn't
always buy you quality. What alot of money does buy thou is consistency.
I will admit that a $3 viewer might not be consistent in quality from batch
to batch as a more expensive viewer. You have observed that you can tell
the difference among the same type of viewer. Have you observed this in more
expensive or cheap viewers ? 

>Going back to the modified VM viewer, as I said, it you like
>it, then it works for you.  There is not much of a choice in
>full-frame 35 mm viewers any way... But if you tell me that
>you use this or a similar viewer for Realist format slides, 
>then I have a few better choices to recommend...
>

Incindently Realist slides are fully viewable with no part of
the image missing as in the case of the 2X2 in a modified 
viewmaster even thou the quality might not be up to par with
your choices. I don't own a Realist since I prefer full frames
but would still like to hear your comments on viewers that you 
recommend. (I might use that info to convert them for viewing viewmaster
reels!:-) OH NO!

I realize most 3d people prefer the Realist format and its the
standard but for the life of me I still don't understand that and
I think I have read your posts concerning your views of wide vs.
Realist.

>The slides that looked best through this
>viewer were not the same that looked best through the red 
>button.  There was a slide of me taken by my father that was
>obviously blurred in the red button but was OK in the $3 viewer.
>With cheap viewers bad slides look OK and very good slides also
>look OK.

Maybe thats why alot of people like the $3 viewer, it makes us
poor picture takers look as good as you pros ;-)

Bye for now

Gabriel
jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


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