Re: 3D Snapshot Quality for Masses (digest 1519)

[P3D Greg Erker <erker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I have heard complains that Loreo prints are fuzzy.  Can the Loreo be
>improved?  Also, how about a GOOD and CHEAP beamsplitter (a.k.a
>mirrorthingie)?  The advantages of the beamsplitter is that people can also
>use slide film and also use existing lenses.  Is the Pentax the ultimate in
>quality?

  The Pentax has front surface mirrors and is well made, but the
problem I have with it is that it uses a 50 mm lens. Half frame
(4 perf) of a 50 mm image is very narrow.  If one was made to fit
a 35 mm lens it would be much more useful for general shooting.
(I know it would have bigger mirrors and thus cost more money.)

  The viewer is a weak point though. The magnification isn't
very large, the white plastic diffuser is too close to the slide
so you can see in focus dust specks on it (also ones on the
front surface mirrors). I hadn't noticed the low magnification
until getting a Realist and red button viewer, but the dust
(and the retinal rivalry it caused) always bothered me.

  I liked the PSA when I bought it but didn't end up using it
very much due to the narrowness of the view. Of course had it
been made for a 35mm focal length lens I wouldn't have bought
it since I don't own one. A catch-22 in some ways.

> Why is it so expensive?

  When I bought mine new (from B&H) in 1989 it wasn't that
much. I thing I paid $119 US for the Stereo Adapter and viewer.
Now it is about $300 for the set, but it is probably because
Pentax only builds a few of them, and not very often.

>3D Economics again?  And, yes, how can
>we get the masses to take the bait? -- George

Greg E.



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