toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I’ll just say that Matej’s viewer is the best news MF3D has had in years. I have one of the current versions and will order more when the wider angle versions are available.
My latest work is doing close-ups in medium format, using 120mm macro lenses, and those images look stunning with the deWijs 100mm lenses.
The viewer is nicely designed—a lot of thought went into it. Smooth focus, a lens cover that’s easily detached, and the system for adding and removing attachments works beautifully.
The viewer works wonderfully for my needs, and I’m thrilled that there’s finally an MF3D viewer available.
On Jun 12, 2021, at 4:07 PM, Depthcam via groups.io
Now that I see that those high resolution displays are only 1440x1440, my enthusiasm has gone down. This means that such a display cannot even achieve full HD (1920 x1080p per eye), which other commercially available options do achieve. The Cinera, for example provides 2560x1440 per eye and no screen door effect. Several of the viewers in the Goovis line also provide full HD and TCL is about to put on the market a pair of very compact spectacles that also provide 1080p.
Another problem is the cost of 3D printing. Your original viewer body was $100 but now the new body is double that and the attachment alone is $100. So now we are at $300. just for the "plastic" body. This means it's time to consider casting to reduce the basic costs.
Also, I don't agree with this notion that we need a "universal solution" that addresses the needs of both digital fans and MF fans. This is 2021 and most of us are shooting digital images and looking for the best digital viewer. Yes, there is still a small group of MF fans that still shoot film and that are also looking for an ideal MF viewer. It seems to me that it would be much less complicated to produce a viewer specifically for digital fans and another one for the MF fans. But why make the viewer modular and thus more expensive when only a few people will actually want the MF solution ?