[photo-3d] Re: Medium format viewer

["Nielsen" <nielsnielsen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks friends.

You have helped me a lot. I tried a 80mm viewing lens with a
6x6 slide today.
It was supposed to give me about the same view of a 50mm
viewing lens for a 35mm slide. I don't know why (probably
because of the square format), but the 6x6 slide image
appears *a lot* bigger than the 35mm... and more vivid too.

I can't wait to build my MF viewer.

I've seen some blueprints that use the Edmund Scientific
lenses... I wonder if I can get someone (like a glasses
store) to make a similar lens for me...

Thanks again
Niels


-----Mensagem original-----
De: Linda Nygren <lnygren@xxxxxxx>
Para: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Data: Segunda-feira, 15 de Janeiro de 2001 16:17
Assunto: Re: [photo-3d] Re: Medium format viewer


>I did not mean to imply that the step up to MF is cannot be
>"significant", but it does look like we agree that the
viewer used is
>extremely important and allows one to realize the potential
of a given
>format. It seems that people often put so much effort (and
money) into
>getting the "best" camera and film but then sometimes
forget how
>important the viewing method is to really get the benefit
of the sharp
>lens, fine grain, image size etc. Admittedly the viewer
upgrade could be
>done later if the budget is limited, but for me it would be
a priority
>so that I can enjoy my slides and learn to improve my work
as I go
>along. (Good viewers and larger formats can emphasize ones
mistakes as
>well as ones stunning successes, after all.) -Linda
>
>Brian Reynolds wrote:
>>
>> Linda Nygren wrote:
>> > Although I would agree that a stereo camera may not be
worth the
>> > expense in your situation, I do think that a good
stereo viewer such
>> > as a Red Button with halogen bulb (and preferably
widened to 7p or
>> > 8p for your purposes) would be a worthwhile investment,
and makes a
>> > huge difference in viewing your results. IMO, the step
up in quality
>> > and brilliance from cheap viewer to a Red Button is a
greater leap
>> > than from 35mm to MF.
>> >
>>
>> I agree that the step up from a cheap view to a good
viewer is well
>> worth it, but in my experience the move from (full frame)
35mm to MF
>> to is still significant.
>>
>> I started with the plastic fold up viewer from "The Civil
War in
>> Depth" that I used with my MF slides.  The improvement
when I built my
>> SaturnSlide MF viewer was incredible.  It was like seeing
brand new
>> slides.  There was a level of detail that I hadn't been
able to see
>> before.  The first pair I looked at through the
SaturnSlide was one of
>> my honeymoon shots of a castle in Ireland.  There are
people at the
>> top of the tower that I had not been able to see with the
plastic
>> viewer.
>>
>> I have also done some full frame 35mm slide bar stereo
with a Pentax
>> K1000 and 50mm f/2 lens.  I can tell the difference
between my Franka
>> viewer (unmodified) and the Red Button viewers I see at
the Third
>> Friday Stereo Dinner.
>>
>> To test the two formats out I have shot the same scene (a
view of the
>> Empire State Building from Herald Square) with the Pentax
and my
>> Yashicamat.  There is no mistaking the two.  With the
Pentax shot I
>> can tell that the foreground buildings have brick walls.
With the
>> Yashicamat shot I can count the bricks and see their
texture.
>>
>> Of course in the end the important thing is is the photo
interesting?
>> A perfectly exposed and mounted MF image of a resolution
chart is not
>> better than a Realist shot of your puppy (or whatever
interests you).
>> MF gives you the tools to take more detailed images, it
does not do
>> the important work of picking a subject and composing the
image.
>>
>> --
>> Brian Reynolds
>
>
>