P3D Re: sharp viewing lens?

[jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gabriel Jacob)]

>How much would a pair of flat-field magnifiers that deliver sharp
>and unistorted images up to the edge of the 7p viewing area and have
>a short focal length (say 45 mm) and good 7p coverage, cost?  There 
>must be a reason that no commercial viewer has been produced yet 
>with such lenses.  
>
>-- George Themelis

Hmmm, I think you know the answer to that one without realizing it. :-)
As people put more emphasis on the camera and scant little on the viewer
(in general), the same goes for manufacturers. What was the price
ratio of the 50's 3-D cameras vs. the viewers (rhetorical question)?
Of course most people would have balked at spending as much on a viewer.

This was in regard to 5p, where an inexpensive viewer (relative to the
camera price) was adequate. As for wider chips, I believe an excellent
3-D viewer can be made for the (or less) price of a good camera, the
problem is as decribed above, most people won't even spend that kind
of money. Are camera optics more complicated (or expensive) than viewer
optics?

Another problem compounding all this, as we all know, there is very
little demand for viewers of any type (print or slide). This results
in viewers (not even 3-D) geared only to professionals with their
associated high cost. So it seems good viewers are destined to remain
expensive for the foreseeable future.

In regards to 7p, how was this width chosen? Does this have to do with
the associated loss of image from the camera lens displacement?  

Gabriel


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