3d-printed stereoscope update


Matej Bohac
 

Dear friends,

Over a year ago I created a 3D-printed stereoscope, specifically designed for the Sony XZ Premium 4K phone. Although I believe that this discontinued phone still has the best screen available for the purpose, I worked on an 'update' of the stereoscope in the past months. It evolved into a modular system with interchangeable components.

- there is an option to use ANY smartphone now
- I experimented with a dual high resolution display that can be connected to a computer
- there is a steal-the-light MF slide module and I am working on a battery powered back light
- I am experimenting with shorter FL lenses

I just finished a diagram with an overview of the system:
http://stereofotografie.matej.boha.cz/printed_stereoscope.php

I would be happy to provide more information in case of interest...

With best regards,

Matej Bohac

Prague, Czechia


George Themelis
 

This is fantastic Matej!

 

Thank you for your work on this. We desperately need a flexible and powerful viewing device like this!

 

Put my down for the entire set, whatever that means :)

 

George

 

 

From: Matej Bohac
Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 11:13 AM
To: main@photo-3d.groups.io
Subject: [Photo-3d] 3d-printed stereoscope update

 

Dear friends,

 

Over a year ago I created a 3D-printed stereoscope, specifically

designed for the Sony XZ Premium 4K phone. Although I believe that this

discontinued phone still has the best screen available for the purpose,

I worked on an 'update' of the stereoscope in the past months. It

evolved into a modular system with interchangeable components.

 

- there is an option to use ANY smartphone now

- I experimented with a dual high resolution display that can be

connected to a computer

- there is a steal-the-light MF slide module and I am working on a

battery powered back light

- I am experimenting with shorter FL lenses

 

I just finished a diagram with an overview of the system:

http://stereofotografie.matej.boha.cz/printed_stereoscope.php

 

I would be happy to provide more information in case of interest...

 

With best regards,

 

Matej Bohac

 

Prague, Czechia

 

 

 

 

 

 


Depthcam
 

Amazing project.

I like very much the idea of a high rez display that can be connected as an extra computer monitor.

And great idea to have wider lenses.

Francois


Matthew Infante
 

Sign me up as well. This very exciting!


Matt Infante


On Jun 9, 2021, at 10:58 PM, Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam@...> wrote:

Amazing project.

I like very much the idea of a high rez display that can be connected as an extra computer monitor.

And great idea to have wider lenses.

Francois


Matej Bohac
 

The 1440×1440 px displays are a tricky, but exciting part. I have been experimenting with this set of screens from China:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4001289820687.html?spm=a2g0s.9042311.0.0.1d744c4dXu7Fe9

It connects to a computer over a HDMI data cable. Your graphics card needs to be capable of dealing with the resolution (2880×1440) and the behaviour of the device is somewhat non-standard. Despite this I made it run on a 10 years old machine - but it does not work with other older computers I tried. I believe that a modern computer, capable of displaying 4K, should be OK.

The image quality (colours and contrast) is not as good as a Sony 4K phone. Just like the 4K screens it also has a slightly visible structure, so I would recommend to use the longer 100 mm lenses - wider angles would make it more apparent. But it can definitely work nicely for checking image alignment in SPM or any other stereoscopic work performed on a computer!

I modified the viewer body to allow it to be mounted on a tripod plate, so this can become a fixed table-top setup.

If anyone was interested I offer to build the stereoscope and the housing for this particular type of displays. It would probably be best if you could order the set directly from AliExpress and put it in the housing yourself (a fairly easy job).

Matej

On 6/10/21 4:58 AM, Depthcam via groups.io wrote:
I like very much the idea of a high rez display that can be connected as an extra computer monitor.


Matej Bohac
 

Thanks. To be clear, this is the current state of the project:

B1: (100 mm FL body) - available
L1, L2: (100 mm lenses) - available
A1: (versatile phone holder) - available
A2: available for the XZ Premium, Z5 Premium to follow soon.
A3: (2×1440×1440 displays) - please see the message I posted several minutes ago
A4: (MF LED back light) - work in progress, available later this year
A5: (MF steal-the-light) - available

B1: (80 mm FL body) - work in progress

I would ask around $200 for the stereoscope body (B) and $50 to $100 for the available attachments (A), just the "A4" LED light will have to be more expensive.

The 100mm achromatic lenses (L1) cost around $130/pair from the supplier (Jeroen de Wijs in the Netherlands) (inc. VAT). The quality is excellent.

With best regards,

Matej

On 6/10/21 6:02 AM, Matthew Infante wrote:
Sign me up as well. This very exciting!
Matt Infante

On Jun 9, 2021, at 10:58 PM, Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:

Amazing project.

I like very much the idea of a high rez display that can be connected as an extra computer monitor.

And great idea to have wider lenses.

Francois


Paul Gillis
 

Matej,

I have enjoyed using the A5 holder for med. format transparencies.  However, The 100 mm FL lenses really do not provide the "in-your-face" viewing experience that shorter lenses do.  (But they seem perfect for viewing the XZ Premium's screen.)  If you build a body with 80 mm FL lenses, can it be designed to work well with both the phone & the (50 x 50 mm aperture) transparencies?

--Paul Gillis


Matej Bohac
 

Hi Paul,

Yes, that's my goal - to make both of the body types with different focal lengths match all of the attachments.

However, your viewer and attachment is different - you have the previous type designed specifically for the phone...

Regards,

Matej

On 6/10/21 7:18 PM, Paul Gillis wrote:
Matej,
I have enjoyed using the A5 holder for med. format transparencies. However, The 100 mm FL lenses really do not provide the "in-your-face" viewing experience that shorter lenses do.  (But they seem perfect for viewing the XZ Premium's screen.)  If you build a body with 80 mm FL lenses, can it be designed to work well with both the phone & the (50 x 50 mm aperture) transparencies?
--Paul Gillis


Depthcam
 

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 ?

Francois


 

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. 


Bob Venezia
Seattle, Washington

On Jun 12, 2021, at 4:07 PM, Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam@...> wrote:

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 ?

Francois


Depthcam
 

> I’ll just say that Matej’s viewer is the best news MF3D has had in years


But the point here is MF3D users would be better served with a viewer that is entirely optimized for MF3D rather than a modular one that is also designed to accommodate digital formats. I think that one viewer for each specific format would be more economical than one that tries to satisfy various users since most people will only have one use for their viewer.

I think the whole notion of a modular viewer stems from the fact that Matej designed an MF3D module for his original ZX viewer.  This module turned out to be a compromise because many MF3D users wanted a shorter focal length.  Now Matej is proposing 75 to 80mm for MF3D, but still suggests 100mm for the digital back.  Therefore having this as a modular system just complicates matters and brings up the price needlessly.

Francois

Francois


Jeroen de Wijs
 


I want to coment on your note on that what Matej is doing which is possible within his production options. Matej is not running a large factory.
As small company I know how difficult it is to find solutions to produce viewers in low quantities and keep the costs down. Matej and his team just applies a very low profit on their production costs to keep things affordable.
Comparing his solution, actually a 3D printed version hand held version of a digital viewer I already made in 2018 for exhibits with the double 1440x1440 LCD's. Comparing the resolution of stand alone VR viewers running on Android is, I think, not fair as those cannot do what his (and mine) can do; connecting it to your computer or other sources with more reasonable lower magnification. 
Those LCDs are now for about 3 years on the market and I know theire limits as well. it is currently the best resolution (and addressable) you can have with this concept; controller-LCD set. while others go higher with full HD or more for each eye is just because they position the processor (android) close to the LCD, and not feed the LCD through HDMI. 

If there was a solution for what Matej did build, then the big companies already did. 
If you want to make a enclosure of a viewer of plastic, and it will be a complicated one, you have to deal with mould costs of at least 20.000 Euro's for each part (made in Europe or US) And there is of coarse more than one piece in the viewer. And series number of several thousend pieces. Knowing the amount of people realy interested in this kind of viewer, it is not worh doing that, you will loose money. The 3D comunity will endorse you to build a reasonable priced viewer and the invester is facing backruptsy because it won't sell or sell with loss. 
3D printing is one of the affordable new production methods to solve the need of very low series custom build 3D stuff for our comunity. It requires knowledge, craftmanship and perseverance. Besides the labor to finish each part to look good, which is the back side of 3D printing compared with metal milling. 
It is good to design one 'platform' of what Matej and his team did as start point for other media solutions as MF and all other 5.5" sized LCD panels are close to the same size. Desiging all kinds of different enclosures and solutions is for a small 3D company / team is not reasonable meaning time and costs. 
you are right if there might be a compromise. But complaning about higher costs and pointing out that you don't want to compromise and only want the best, is something you should only say to Sony or Samsung ;-) 

Printing such an enclosure of his viewer takes about 10 hours (it is a guess but i might be right). not even talking about all the other parts. Finishing it, taking all left overs of the printing process, also takes the needed time. Making an adapter with all kinds of hooks, gaps and parts should interlock with eachother is realy a chalange. His way of 3D printing, FDM, needs a good printer, good printer settings and knoledge how to design for that printing method, CAD software, etc. You actually get a viewer build with the knowledge of someone who could work as proffesional designer ;-) so the costs are not high at all. Privately, and compared with big companies, yes it is higher then 3Dworld did with their MF viewers. But considder my what I have just written. 

It is all a compromise as we, small 3D companies / teams and comunity, do not have the knowledge and finacial power to achieve things the big companies can. We can get close and there is alway's something to complain about or to improve on what the members of the comunity have build. But that is part of this comunity to encourage and to coment on things. So also your coments Francois are welcome as well ;-)

Jeroen.


Matej Bohac
 

Thanks to everyone for the comments and especially to Jeroen, who answered some of the remarks. Just a few things I'd like to clarify:

- The evolution of digital technologies is so fast that designing a specific solution for a particular type of displays or phones is very problematic. The "modular design" allows to simply adapt the viewer to any new type of display by making a new back, without having to change the whole body. And, from the perspective of the user, without having to buy a new body. If you pointed me to a better type of displays than the ones I linked I can possibly make a housing for them. The same with smartphones.

- The modular design does not add much to the price of the printing. The price you refer to ($100 for the XZ Premium viewer) was simply unbearable with all the effort put in re-designing the viewer according to the response and demands I received. I designed and made the first viewers for my friends, out of pure enthusiasm.
Development of any product requires an enormous amount of work, test printing, buying and testing components and other expenses and as we all know, the prospective production volume is ridiculously low here.
The body is not just "plastic". There are metal gears and other parts and the assembly requires an amount of handwork that is not negligible.
Sorry to say this, I hope it is understandable.

- The printing time of the body is about 30 hours, around 50 for the whole viewer with all other parts. Jeroen's estimate of 10 was unfortunately too optimistic:-)

- I don't have any team and nothing that could be called a company (so far:-)

With best regards,

Matej

On 6/14/21 2:21 PM, Jeroen de Wijs wrote:
I want to coment on your note on that what Matej is doing which is possible within his production options. Matej is not running a large factory.
As small company I know how difficult it is to find solutions to produce viewers in low quantities and keep the costs down. Matej and his team just applies a very low profit on their production costs to keep things affordable.
Comparing his solution, actually a 3D printed version hand held version of a digital viewer I already made in 2018 for exhibits with the double 1440x1440 LCD's. Comparing the resolution of stand alone VR viewers running on Android is, I think, not fair as those cannot do what his (and mine) can do; connecting it to your computer or other sources with more reasonable lower magnification.
Those LCDs are now for about 3 years on the market and I know theire limits as well. it is currently the best resolution (and addressable) you can have with this concept; controller-LCD set. while others go higher with full HD or more for each eye is just because they position the processor (android) close to the LCD, and not feed the LCD through HDMI.
If there was a solution for what Matej did build, then the big companies already did.
If you want to make a enclosure of a viewer of plastic, and it will be a complicated one, you have to deal with mould costs of at least 20.000 Euro's for each part (made in Europe or US) And there is of coarse more than one piece in the viewer. And series number of several thousend pieces. Knowing the amount of people realy interested in this kind of viewer, it is not worh doing that, you will loose money. The 3D comunity will endorse you to build a reasonable priced viewer and the invester is facing backruptsy because it won't sell or sell with loss.
3D printing is one of the affordable new production methods to solve the need of very low series custom build 3D stuff for our comunity. It requires knowledge, craftmanship and perseverance. Besides the labor to finish each part to look good, which is the back side of 3D printing compared with metal milling.
It is good to design one 'platform' of what Matej and his team did as start point for other media solutions as MF and all other 5.5" sized LCD panels are close to the same size. Desiging all kinds of different enclosures and solutions is for a small 3D company / team is not reasonable meaning time and costs.
you are right if there might be a compromise. But complaning about higher costs and pointing out that you don't want to compromise and only want the best, is something you should only say to Sony or Samsung ;-)
Printing such an enclosure of his viewer takes about 10 hours (it is a guess but i might be right). not even talking about all the other parts. Finishing it, taking all left overs of the printing process, also takes the needed time. Making an adapter with all kinds of hooks, gaps and parts should interlock with eachother is realy a chalange. His way of 3D printing, FDM, needs a good printer, good printer settings and knoledge how to design for that printing method, CAD software, etc. You actually get a viewer build with the knowledge of someone who could work as proffesional designer ;-) so the costs are not high at all. Privately, and compared with big companies, yes it is higher then 3Dworld did with their MF viewers. But considder my what I have just written.
It is all a compromise as we, small 3D companies / teams and comunity, do not have the knowledge and finacial power to achieve things the big companies can. We can get close and there is alway's something to complain about or to improve on what the members of the comunity have build. But that is part of this comunity to encourage and to coment on things. So also your coments Francois are welcome as well ;-)
Jeroen.


robert mcafee
 

Are you printing these yourself?  If yes, May I ask what printer you are using?

What material are you using for the 3D printing?




On Monday, June 14, 2021, 12:47 PM, Matej Bohac <matej@...> wrote:

Thanks to everyone for the comments and especially to Jeroen, who
answered some of the remarks. Just a few things I'd like to clarify:

- The evolution of digital technologies is so fast that designing a
specific solution for a particular type of displays or phones is very
problematic. The "modular design" allows to simply adapt the viewer to
any new type of display by making a new back, without having to change
the whole body. And, from the perspective of the user, without having to
buy a new body. If you pointed me to a better type of displays than the
ones I linked I can possibly make a housing for them. The same with
smartphones.

- The modular design does not add much to the price of the printing. The
price you refer to ($100 for the XZ Premium viewer) was simply
unbearable with all the effort put in re-designing the viewer according
to the response and demands I received. I designed and made the first
viewers for my friends, out of pure enthusiasm.
Development of any product requires an enormous amount of work, test
printing, buying and testing components and other expenses and as we all
know, the prospective production volume is ridiculously low here.
The body is not just "plastic". There are metal gears and other parts
and the assembly requires an amount of handwork that is not negligible.
Sorry to say this, I hope it is understandable.

- The printing time of the body is about 30 hours, around 50 for the
whole viewer with all other parts. Jeroen's estimate of 10 was
unfortunately too optimistic:-)

- I don't have any team and nothing that could be called a company (so
far:-)

With best regards,

Matej







On 6/14/21 2:21 PM, Jeroen de Wijs wrote:
>
> I want to coment on your note on that what Matej is doing which is
> possible within his production options. Matej is not running a large
> factory.
> As small company I know how difficult it is to find solutions to produce
> viewers in low quantities and keep the costs down. Matej and his team
> just applies a very low profit on their production costs to keep things
> affordable.
> Comparing his solution, actually a 3D printed version hand held version
> of a digital viewer I already made in 2018 for exhibits with the double
> 1440x1440 LCD's. Comparing the resolution of stand alone VR viewers
> running on Android is, I think, not fair as those cannot do what his
> (and mine) can do; connecting it to your computer or other sources with
> more reasonable lower magnification.
> Those LCDs are now for about 3 years on the market and I know theire
> limits as well. it is currently the best resolution (and addressable)
> you can have with this concept; controller-LCD set. while others go
> higher with full HD or more for each eye is just because they position
> the processor (android) close to the LCD, and not feed the LCD through
> HDMI.
>
> If there was a solution for what Matej did build, then the big companies
> already did.
> If you want to make a enclosure of a viewer of plastic, and it will be a
> complicated one, you have to deal with mould costs of at least 20.000
> Euro's for each part (made in Europe or US) And there is of coarse more
> than one piece in the viewer. And series number of several thousend
> pieces. Knowing the amount of people realy interested in this kind of
> viewer, it is not worh doing that, you will loose money. The 3D comunity
> will endorse you to build a reasonable priced viewer and the invester is
> facing backruptsy because it won't sell or sell with loss.
> 3D printing is one of the affordable new production methods to solve the
> need of very low series custom build 3D stuff for our comunity. It
> requires knowledge, craftmanship and perseverance. Besides the labor to
> finish each part to look good, which is the back side of 3D printing
> compared with metal milling.
> It is good to design one 'platform' of what Matej and his team did as
> start point for other media solutions as MF and all other 5.5" sized LCD
> panels are close to the same size. Desiging all kinds of different
> enclosures and solutions is for a small 3D company / team is not
> reasonable meaning time and costs.
> you are right if there might be a compromise. But complaning about
> higher costs and pointing out that you don't want to compromise and only
> want the best, is something you should only say to Sony or Samsung ;-)
>
> Printing such an enclosure of his viewer takes about 10 hours (it is a
> guess but i might be right). not even talking about all the other parts.
> Finishing it, taking all left overs of the printing process, also takes
> the needed time. Making an adapter with all kinds of hooks, gaps and
> parts should interlock with eachother is realy a chalange. His way of 3D
> printing, FDM, needs a good printer, good printer settings and knoledge
> how to design for that printing method, CAD software, etc. You actually
> get a viewer build with the knowledge of someone who could work as
> proffesional designer ;-) so the costs are not high at all. Privately,
> and compared with big companies, yes it is higher then 3Dworld did with
> their MF viewers. But considder my what I have just written.
>
> It is all a compromise as we, small 3D companies / teams and comunity,
> do not have the knowledge and finacial power to achieve things the big
> companies can. We can get close and there is alway's something to
> complain about or to improve on what the members of the comunity have
> build. But that is part of this comunity to encourage and to coment on
> things. So also your coments Francois are welcome as well ;-)
>
> Jeroen.
>
>






Bill G
 

Matej, sorry I have been on the 3d sidelines for awhile as other projects have pulled me away from 3d.
It's sad you have to justify providing the ONLY current products for our tiny hobby.  I am sure you if you accounted for all your design hours into these projects, and supervising the builds, dealing with customers, whatever you net, would yield you less than minimum wage.  This is obviously a passion project for you, certainly NOT a "get wealthy project."  Please don't be discouraged by certain comments, you can never please everyone.

The 3d world viewers were priced for mass production.  Like all 3d projects, the volume never follows.  We all see how long 3dWorld stayed in business.  It was not a sustainable business model.
I am grateful you have the passion, expertise, and willingness to provide these products at such competitive prices for such low volume products.  I love the new modular system you moved to.  As u mentioned, it makes perfect sense for multi use and future expansion.  It will provide 3d viewing products for existing and new 3d users of many formats, something this field really needs.

I had some 75mm fl optics designed for MF 3d Film 50x60 which I prototyped over 10 years ago.  They are quite wide, about 55mm diam from memory.   I have the designs and manufacturing specifications.  If you are interested I can try to find the specifications and give them to you at no cost.  The problem will be the price... they were quoted 10 yrs ago at $80 each in volume of 100, this was due to the diameter, glass type, coatings.  They are superb for fixed IPD viewer as they have a very large eye box and a generous amount of Eye Relief, two significant benefits for a universal viewer, i.e. one size fits all.  I realize this would require another new design to hold these optics vs. what you are planning to use.  It seems optics manufacturing pricing is falling a bit, so maybe they can be built at a slightly lower cost today.  I suggest u manually check the fl of each optic and pair them when u get a batch of them, before inserting in the viewer.  Nominal fl and actual fl can vary.  This is a result of low manufacturing tolerance of the glass to keep the price at these low levels. 
Bill G


On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 9:48 AM Matej Bohac <matej@...> wrote:
Thanks to everyone for the comments and especially to Jeroen, who
answered some of the remarks. Just a few things I'd like to clarify:

- The evolution of digital technologies is so fast that designing a
specific solution for a particular type of displays or phones is very
problematic. The "modular design" allows to simply adapt the viewer to
any new type of display by making a new back, without having to change
the whole body. And, from the perspective of the user, without having to
buy a new body. If you pointed me to a better type of displays than the
ones I linked I can possibly make a housing for them. The same with
smartphones.

- The modular design does not add much to the price of the printing. The
price you refer to ($100 for the XZ Premium viewer) was simply
unbearable with all the effort put in re-designing the viewer according
to the response and demands I received. I designed and made the first
viewers for my friends, out of pure enthusiasm.
Development of any product requires an enormous amount of work, test
printing, buying and testing components and other expenses and as we all
know, the prospective production volume is ridiculously low here.
The body is not just "plastic". There are metal gears and other parts
and the assembly requires an amount of handwork that is not negligible.
Sorry to say this, I hope it is understandable.

- The printing time of the body is about 30 hours, around 50 for the
whole viewer with all other parts. Jeroen's estimate of 10 was
unfortunately too optimistic:-)

- I don't have any team and nothing that could be called a company (so
far:-)

With best regards,

Matej







On 6/14/21 2:21 PM, Jeroen de Wijs wrote:
>
> I want to coment on your note on that what Matej is doing which is
> possible within his production options. Matej is not running a large
> factory.
> As small company I know how difficult it is to find solutions to produce
> viewers in low quantities and keep the costs down. Matej and his team
> just applies a very low profit on their production costs to keep things
> affordable.
> Comparing his solution, actually a 3D printed version hand held version
> of a digital viewer I already made in 2018 for exhibits with the double
> 1440x1440 LCD's. Comparing the resolution of stand alone VR viewers
> running on Android is, I think, not fair as those cannot do what his
> (and mine) can do; connecting it to your computer or other sources with
> more reasonable lower magnification.
> Those LCDs are now for about 3 years on the market and I know theire
> limits as well. it is currently the best resolution (and addressable)
> you can have with this concept; controller-LCD set. while others go
> higher with full HD or more for each eye is just because they position
> the processor (android) close to the LCD, and not feed the LCD through
> HDMI.
>
> If there was a solution for what Matej did build, then the big companies
> already did.
> If you want to make a enclosure of a viewer of plastic, and it will be a
> complicated one, you have to deal with mould costs of at least 20.000
> Euro's for each part (made in Europe or US) And there is of coarse more
> than one piece in the viewer. And series number of several thousend
> pieces. Knowing the amount of people realy interested in this kind of
> viewer, it is not worh doing that, you will loose money. The 3D comunity
> will endorse you to build a reasonable priced viewer and the invester is
> facing backruptsy because it won't sell or sell with loss.
> 3D printing is one of the affordable new production methods to solve the
> need of very low series custom build 3D stuff for our comunity. It
> requires knowledge, craftmanship and perseverance. Besides the labor to
> finish each part to look good, which is the back side of 3D printing
> compared with metal milling.
> It is good to design one 'platform' of what Matej and his team did as
> start point for other media solutions as MF and all other 5.5" sized LCD
> panels are close to the same size. Desiging all kinds of different
> enclosures and solutions is for a small 3D company / team is not
> reasonable meaning time and costs.
> you are right if there might be a compromise. But complaning about
> higher costs and pointing out that you don't want to compromise and only
> want the best, is something you should only say to Sony or Samsung ;-)
>
> Printing such an enclosure of his viewer takes about 10 hours (it is a
> guess but i might be right). not even talking about all the other parts.
> Finishing it, taking all left overs of the printing process, also takes
> the needed time. Making an adapter with all kinds of hooks, gaps and
> parts should interlock with eachother is realy a chalange. His way of 3D
> printing, FDM, needs a good printer, good printer settings and knoledge
> how to design for that printing method, CAD software, etc. You actually
> get a viewer build with the knowledge of someone who could work as
> proffesional designer ;-) so the costs are not high at all. Privately,
> and compared with big companies, yes it is higher then 3Dworld did with
> their MF viewers. But considder my what I have just written.
>
> It is all a compromise as we, small 3D companies / teams and comunity,
> do not have the knowledge and finacial power to achieve things the big
> companies can. We can get close and there is alway's something to
> complain about or to improve on what the members of the comunity have
> build. But that is part of this comunity to encourage and to coment on
> things. So also your coments Francois are welcome as well ;-)
>
> Jeroen.
>
>






Matej Bohac
 

Are you printing these yourself?  If yes, May I ask what printer you are using?
Yes, I have the Prusa MK3S

What material are you using for the 3D printing?
I prefer PLA for these projects. I like the mechanical characteristics and the way it looks. A little bit problematic is the low resistance to higher temperatures - the viewer can warp when left in a car etc.

M.


robert mcafee
 

1) you may find you can reduce your costs and have other material options and 3D printing methods available using a company like Protolabs or Xomety - free online quotes. Better pricing in small volumes compared to only a couple pieces at a time
2) many of these materials shrink overtime or their dimensions and mechanical properties are (at least temporarily) affected by high humidity
3) protolabs also does plastic molding. An aluminum die good for up to 2,000 pieces could be around $3,000 (or more) but with low piece price costs. In quantities of 150 to 250 pieces this may be worthwhile.  

I like to use an ABS like PLA - very dimensionally stable but higher temperature required to print. I will leave a piece in my hot car to see if it permanently deforms 




On Monday, June 14, 2021, 3:37 PM, Matej Bohac <matej@...> wrote:


> Are you printing these yourself?  If yes, May I ask what printer you are
> using?

Yes, I have the Prusa MK3S

> What material are you using for the 3D printing?

I prefer PLA for these projects. I like the mechanical characteristics
and the way it looks. A little bit problematic is the low resistance to
higher temperatures - the viewer can warp when left in a car etc.

M.






Depthcam
 

> Comparing the resolution of stand alone VR viewers running on Android is, I think, not fair


My references are not to VR headsets but to 3D movie viewers.  These use the entire display and pixels to apply to a minimum 16:9 image area having minimum FHD capability.  They are:

* Cinera Prime
* Goovis Pro 3D
* TCL wearable display

None of these are VR headsets.


> If you want to make a enclosure of a viewer of plastic, and it will be a complicated one, you have to deal with mould costs of at least 20.000 Euro's for each part


Not so.  I have a friend and colleague here that can make low-cost molds and castings from 3D printed originals that look like they were produced by a large manufacturing plant.  His main line of business is in fact producing high quality resin copies of 3D printed originals which he first refinishes to remove all trace of the 3D printing process - leaving a professional finish.


> 3D printing is one of the affordable new production methods to solve the need of very low series custom build 3D stuff


I am not discounting 3D printing per se.  What I question is the need for a modular viewer rather than one for a single purpose.  The modular design involves extra parts and therefore extra costs. As I pointed out, most people want a digital only viewer.  So there is no logic in making the viewer modular just to accommodate the very few that might want an MF viewer.  Better make one single design for each use.


> connecting it to your computer or other sources with more reasonable lower magnification.


From descriptions I read the TCL will connect to a computer or phone.  But an app can also play the content.


> But that is part of this community to encourage and to comment on things


That's what a discussion forum is for.  But a lot of people fear voicing a different opinion because they know there will always be someone to chastise them for it.

I don't mean to discourage Matej.  I told him from the onset that I was impressed with his work.  But looking at his current proposal, I would be very curious to know just how many people would prefer a very elaborate modular system over a simple viewer that does just what the buyer requires...

Francois


Depthcam
 

> The evolution of digital technologies is so fast that designing a specific solution for a particular type of displays or phones is very problematic. The "modular design" allows to simply adapt the viewer to any new type of display by making a new back


But the problem is - by your own admission - that there is no better solution at the moment than the discontinued Sony ZX.  Therefore that modular solution (at present) only offers options that are lower resolution than the ZX.  As for the MF3D option, as I pointed out, it is addressing a very specific and very small market that most digital enthusiasts do not share.


> If you pointed me to a better type of displays than the ones I linked I can possibly make a housing for them.


I think the problem right now is we don't have any sources for better displays.  Cinera used wider displays but they were so large that they needed to arrange them in a Wheatstone configuration - making for a much larger viewer.  Their second-generation viewer (Cinera Edge - still not released) uses a much smaller high resolution display but I have no idea where they get these.


> The same with smartphones.


There seems to be no more race to 4K as far as phones are concerned.  I think this race was initially motivated by people using phones in VR shell-type headsets.  But since the advent of lower cost high resolution VR headsets, most people that are interested in VR will buy integrated headsets such as Quest2 and the like instead of using their phones.


> The price you refer to ($100 for the XZ Premium viewer) was simply unbearable


That is unfortunate as it also means a strong limitation when all costs are added.  Even though some people think nothing of price, others are very conscious of the final retail cost due to their limited budget.  Although I often appear here as the "black sheep", I am actually voicing the concerns that many have expressed in private emails to me.  They are looking for a compact and economical solution.  Maybe that is not achievable ?


> The printing time of the body is about 30 hours, around 50 for the whole viewer with all other parts


That is why a casting solution might be considered..  See below a sample of the kind of work my friend does with 3D printed originals...

Francois


Bill Costa as just a member
 

[The] second-generation viewer (Cinera Edge - still not released) uses a much smaller high resolution display but I have no idea where they get these.

Creation and commodification of micro displays has been driven by the need for electronic view-finders (EVF) for mirrorless cameras, and head mounted displays for VR.  These displays are readily available from Sony and no doubt other companies.  The problem of course is that serious electronics design and development is required to drive these displays not to mention the optical design challenges.  This is a very tough lift for an individual developer or hobbyist.  I think a product space to watch is the EVF market for videographers.  These devices are certainly not cheap, but price may continue to drop and given their module nature, it looks like it would be feasible for a motivated hobbyist or developer to create a driver using an Arduino or Raspberry Pi module.

--
Bill.Costa@...
No good deed goes unpunished.