Re: Holmes Viewers

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am a bit puzzled by David Lee's definition of an antique viewer... Is a
1930's Keystone viewer NOT considered antique?  Apparently David puts the
Keystone viewers in the "modern viewer" category.  Is Keystone STILL making
stereo viewers for eye testing???

>A viewer is simply a tool for viewing a stereo card. 

Well... sort of... A stereo viewer is a tool for viewing stereo images just
like a stereo camera is a tool for recording stereo images.  Viewers are
simpler than cameras but equally important, IMO.

>Ideally it should have excellent lenses, it should 
>have no hood (or one which is sufficiently large to accommodate
>eyeglasses), 

Just a minute... Ideally, for me, a viewer should have a tight hood to
disconnect the environment so I can be absorbed and concentrated in my
viewing.  I do not wear glasses.  Why should I define the ideal viewer as
one that better serves those who wear glasses?

[Off topic comment:  My highly unscientific (hi Greg!) and informal polls
and observations indicate that those who do not wear glasses *appear to
enjoy* viewing stereo images with a viewer *more* than those who do.]

There are more requirements in the lenses in terms of size, focal length,
matching optical characteristics, etc.  Also, you did not mention anything
about light source.  Ideally, a viewer should have internal illumination,
which should have certain characteristics (bright, uniform, white color,
etc.) depending on what is being viewed.

>I have yet to see an antique viewer which 
>meets these specifications. 

What is your definition of antique viewer?  19th century?

>There was a wooden viewer called the Redwing 
>Viewer which did all these things and was beautiful in addition, but it is
>no longer available. 

This (Red Wing viewer) was made in the late 80s.  I had one of those and I
was happy to sell it for $120 (I think) a few years ago.  Optically, it was
no better than a metal Keystone viewer and certainly much worse than an
achromatic viewer.  Yes it did look nice but I tend to value function
higher than looks in viewers (and cameras too).

>For simple functionality there are several metal Keystone viewers... 
>The Keystone 
>models range from the most simple hand held model to pedestal mounted models 
>(especially good for exhibitions (I have 10 of them for this purpose)). Both 
>Keystone and the Stereo Optical Company also make eye testing viewers in the 
>$1000 range. 

Is Keystone still making these viewers today???  Most of the Keystone
viewers that I see must be 30 to 60 years old and I would not classify
those as "modern".  I don't think that Keystone is still making viewers...
I don't even know they exist as a company... So, if someone wants to buy a
NEW modern "Holmes" viewer, what is your recommendation?  In many cases a
$50 antique viewer is a good place to start.

I have personally sold all my "antique" and "modern" viewers (metal
Keystone, Bioptor, Red Wing and many others) and have kept only two:

1.  An antique (in my dictionary, at least) tabletop Keystone viewer with
achromatic lenses and a large (& heavy) pedestal base, adjustable height
and internal illumination.

2. A modern portable achromatic viewer with fine wood finish and a custom
made tight and long hood and card holder made by the master of modern
stereo viewer construction, Alan Lewis.

None of the two is a $75 viewer but they are both excellent.  Once you get
used to using achromatic card viewers, it is very difficult to go back to
the chromatic aberration of simple lenses.

George Themelis


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