T3D 1.2mm OFD theory

[erker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Greg Erker)]

Wacky theory follows:

  Is it possible that the people who
try hard to get the maximum allowable
on-film deviation (1.2mm for Realist)
are the same people who use the "mount
to infinity method" of slide mounting?

  I'm in the "mount to the window camp"
and so if my slide has only 0.6mm OFD
it will still look nice with the near
point at the stereo window. (The far
point ends up further away but not at
infinity of course.)

  If I were to mount the same slide
using the mount to infinity method,
the far point would be at infinity
and the near point at something like
15 feet which is way behind the window.
In this case the slide may well look
flat and boring because there is nothing
near the window.

  Thus getting as close to 1.2mm OFD
is very important for the mount to
infinity method otherwise there is
nothing close to the stereo window.
And having something close to or at
the stereo window makes the slide look
much better (IMHO). Which probably
explains why I'm a mount to the window
guy.

  I know George is a mount to the
window guy also. I don't know which camp
Tom is in, though getting the max OFD
seems to be important to him. Perhaps
you (Tom) can tell us your mounting
method and shoot a hole in my theory
or support it.

  Any comments or flames?

  BTW I'm not trying to pick fights
or start a flame war. Just trying to
understand why rational people can have
such strong opinions on the importance
or unimportance of maximizing the OFD.

My opinions only (natch) - Greg E.



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