T3D Re: Examples and Experience

[John Bercovitz <bercov@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> John, you are very generous with your compliments and praise,
> but I am not so sure I am worthy of it.

Don't be shy; I've seen the magazines you've mentioned and you've
sent slides to our annual exhibition and whatever you're doing,
you're definitely doing it right.  Doesn't matter how you got
there.

As far as the effect of having a pair scanned and put on a 
magazine page, if you took a pair with a 50 mm lens operating
at about 60 mm, then the correct viewing distance is 60/24
times the height of the image as printed in the magazine, 
provided the full height of your original was printed.  So
if the pair was printed to be 2" high, then you should view
from (60/24)*2" = 5" which is awfully close.  This is why
most pairs printed in magazines show a lot of stretch 
unless you're myopic or use the lorgnette viewer.

Regardless, what we're really talking about is "viewability".
Your views are definitely viewable and don't dissociate for
me.  If you had used MAOFD, they also would have been 
viewable.  Whatever works.  If you have the experience, you
don't need MAOFD. 

John B



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