Re: Vertical misalignment and antinewton glass

[P3D Ronald W Doerfler <doerfler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, George, for your knowledgeable comments on something that has
been bothering me for awhile:

>>(Anyone think that the anti-newton glass reduces the sharpness in a
>>Red Button quality viewer over no glass??--or am I imagining things...)

>No.  I can see it too.  I am even worried for projection.

Actually, I just thought about this--I think that if you are projecting
on a screen, as opposed to backlighting from a viewer, the anti-newton
glass is on the bulb side of the slide, so there would be no degradation.
Perhaps I should mount these backwards, so the glass is on the bulb side
when viewing in a viewer, but on the lens side when projecting (where I
don't think it would be (as?) noticeable.  It was recommended before,
I believe, to put the black mask side towards me in the viewer to reduce
reflections off of the white mask side.

I agree that I could forget the glass.  However, half of my masks I bought
are sized for it.

>>I forgot to mention that my camera is a Realist 3.5.  Looking at how the
>>film is pulled off the canister, I suppose .1mm deviation is not surprising.

>So you think it's the film?  I doubt it.  Is the deviation always in the
>same direction (e.g. right chip always higher than left chip)?  The cameras
>that don't have this problem (like my 2.8 now) never have a problem with
>such deviation.  

Yes, if the right side is not .1mm high (and is this really a problem that
should be corrected, really?), they are aligned exactly.

Perhaps I should mention that I have had suspicions, because of occasional
out-of-focus blurring in the lower left of my right image (lower right of
the right side of the camera), that advancing the film might be pulling
hard enough to skew the film (or slant the focus plane) of the camera,
the only explanation I can think of for the occasional blurriness, which
is consistent once it starts on a strip of film (there is no discernible play
in the focussing plane).  I once thought it may have been limited to 36-exposure
rolls, but I can't say for sure now.  It seems to be a lesser problem since
I have been careful not to apply tension to the canister after initial winding,
but just take up slack carefully. 

Ron Doerfler
mailto:rdoerfler@xxxxxxxxxx



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