No Subject

[Sam Smith <3dhacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I'm wondering why more people don't just replace the lenses in their
>cameras with brand new ones.  Couldn't an approximate match be found in
>(gasp) Edmund or somewhere?  Is it a problem of matching the optics
>exactly, or are modern lenses just not as good as the old ones.  Or maybe
>it's just price?

My experience is that most of the lenses from supply houses are either too
expensive or poorly matched for most Realist format applications. 
Also, picking up a pair of ANY configuration of optic gives no guarantee
that they are matched, an essentail in stereo.

A few years ago I replaced the optics on an old Stereo Ontoscope that for
some weird reason was missing internal elements. I used Agnars I removed
from Isolettes. I actually had to buy FIVE isolettes before I had a
reasonable match of only two.

Other problems involve optics that are the right focal length but wrong
diameter, or vise versa. This usually means extensiving boring,shimmying,
etc. to make them work, plus perhaps a new focusing scale.

Regarding the Keystone Telebinocular and the achromatic lenses: I just
discovered that they will view a full 5x7 stereo pair taken with a 5x7
stereo camera. This is great news to me as with standard stereoscopes I had
to go with cutting down my image and sticking it on standard card stock. Now
I can view full 5x7 B&W tranparencies by merely transposing as I go from neg
to positive, and only need to keep the image in mylar sleeves.

Question for fellow hackers: Has anyone out there built a light box to fit a
Keystone Telebinocular? Seems to be an ultimate in life-like viewing.


Sam 
The 3D Hacker
website: http://www.cadvision.com/3dhacker/index.htm


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2734
***************************