Matter of size or aspect ratio?

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gabriel, I cannot believe you let your wife cut the grass while you 
are emailing... That's terrible... ;) ;) ;)  Why bother with cutting
the grass anyway???  Let it grow... That's what I do...;)

>That is also why I like full frame, for the bigger size.  Now according
>to personal preferences I think that bigger is better. I think anyone 
>would agree that given the all things being equal (quality, etc.) 
>people prefer bigger. 

Jamie certainly does not agree with this last statement, but let 
me point out that 35 mm is bigger than 5-p in only one dimension.
The second dimension is the same.  It is more accurate to say
that full-frame 35 mm is longer.  It is a matter of aspect
ratio more than sheer size.

In practice, if I want to fill my 60 in. square projection screen
with a full-frame 35 mm image, I will have to put the projector 
further away from the screen so that the long dimension becomes 
60 in.  In a Realist slide I can come closer and have the image 
fill the square screen.  As a result, the *size* of the 35 mm image 
projected to fill the screen will actually be smaller that the 
Realist!  The same applies for viewers.  It is easier to magnify a 
square image due to the round shape of lenses.

The Realist almost square image is magnified nicely in my
red button viewer.  7-p is almost too much for this viewer.  Full-
frame is outside the viewer's field of view.  I love this viewer.
And I make havy use of the Realist format that looks so nice
through it.  The tools we use to view slides (viewers, projectors) 
certainly affect our preferences towards a specific format/cropping.

George Themelis


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