Formats

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. George A. Themelis writes

>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

Yes it might be more correct to say that full-frame 35mm is longer but
in the finaly analysis it still ends up bigger in size overall. As for
aspect ratio it's not the aspect ratio that I like perse, if the aspect
ratio in the 35mm format was  made 2:1 then this would have a longer
length but overall would 25% smaller in area.
You do have a point that I do prefer the wider aspect ratio of a full
35mm but I would not want to sacrifice size for aspect ratio. There is 
a fine line in balancing between aspect ratios and overall size, as
can be attested in movies and television. What would someone prefer,
the 4 by 3 ratio which occupies the full television screen or the wide
format movies sometimes shown on TV that sacrifice the total size with
black bands on top and bottom. Personally I prefer the more "boxy" 4 by
3. Which brings me to your comments about being able to project a 
Realist format on a 60 in. square projection screen more fully than a
full format, yes that is true but that is not fair since you are using
a square slide with a square screen. How about changing to a rectangular
wide screen, then see how the Realist stacks up on it.
As for the viewers here I agree with you 100% that it is easier to magnify
a square image due to the round shape of lenses but it is also easier
to magnify an image that is bigger to start with. (if the image is 
bigger you need less magnification). Example the medium format stereo
views. 
This ties into the freeviewing. When I, reference to prints mentioned
that you can free view prints, try that with a slide. What I meant
by that was that not that it was necessarly harder but that freeviewing
slides sucks. (excuse my language) I can free view slides and 
even V-M reels wide-eyed and cross-eyed but without the aid of
a magnifier the  3d views look very small. Even the 35mm full frame. Now
if we are talking medium format or larger thats a different story.:-)
  
NOTICE: The above is not to be contstrued as hate literature toward the
Realist but only as an open discussion on 3d in general.

Regards (and Yea Soo)

Gabriel
jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


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