P3D Re: Optimum, again!

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> >It has been "established" that the 1.2 mm spec is an "optimum" based on
> >projection in the SWAG formulation of that number.  Is this same number
> >"optimum" for use for hand-viewer-only use?  If not, what number would 
> >be the hand-viewer-only equivalent of the 1.2mm projection number?
> 
> Please Mike, don't confuse the issue again. :-)  1.2 mm is not "optimum".
> It is maximum!!!  And as Boris posted earlier, it can easily be ignored
> under certain circumstances (meaning going even higher),

Yes, I know about it being a maximum, I used "optimum" in quotes in the
sense that I was literally quoting what some were calling the 1.2mm value.
I appologize for not making things a bit clearer, especially because
I agree with your viewpoint of "maximum" rather than necessarily "optimum".

> What would the *maximum* be in a viewer?  Depends on your eyes, I guess.
> There is no established standard and there should not be any IMO.

Is there any aspect of viewer design that would make a particular
viewer worse in this respect than others?

Personally, I've seen that almost any mounting related sin 
is acceptable when viewed in a hand-viewer (well, not having
one image upside-down or sideways, etc), and those without 
access to projectors probably wonder what all the fuss is.  But
it seems that there must be some limit even
if it's great deal bigger than 1.2mm.

It seems that if the spec were 0.75 inches (rather than 1.2mm)
a realist slide, that it probably would be a problem even in
a hand viewer.  If so, then there must be a SWAG'able number
lower than that (which everybody can subsequently take as a 
hard fixed optimum number and then argue about it).


Mike K.


> 
> George Themelis
> 
> 


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